House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Kwasi Kwarteng)
My hon. Friend will know that the growth plan really was a very strong package for business and for small and medium-sized enterprises, and I am sure that many of his constituents will appreciate the strong measures that we introduced.
Mr Baron
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I welcome the Government’s growth agenda, notwithstanding the lack of reassurance to the markets, but will the Chancellor seriously consider lowering taxation on smaller businesses, despite the package that has already been announced? They are the engine room of the economy and employ most people in the private sector, and if cost savings are necessary, High Speed 2 and the streamlining of myriad quangos could be the first option.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am very pleased to tell my hon. Friend that we are going to introduce the medium-term fiscal plan in three weeks’ time, but let us consider the measures that we have already introduced. National insurance hikes have been reversed, the corporation tax rise has been scrapped and the annual investment allowance remains at £1 million. These are measures that small businesses up and down the land have been very appreciative of.
Ian Levy
As my right hon. Friend will be aware, small businesses are the backbone of our local economy—none more than Catling Bakery in Cramlington, which has expanded from running a bakery to running a café and now a dessert bar. Would my right hon. Friend please assure me that this Government will do all they can to help these businesses thrive?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Absolutely right. Of course, we have also supported Catling Bakery which my hon. Friend mentions through an energy package—£60 billion for households and businesses for six months—which we absolutely felt it necessary to do.
Karl MᶜCartney
Thank you, Mr Speaker; it is like I never went away. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Supporting businesses will always be a key pillar for growing our economy and, by association, our small and medium-sized businesses, of which there are many in Lincoln and more across our county of Lincolnshire. They should be at the forefront of the Government’s growth agenda. Devolved areas such as Teesside and the West Midlands have continually been successful in delivering for their areas. Greater Lincolnshire stands ready right now for a maximum devolution deal. Therefore, will the Treasury support any such deal for Greater Lincolnshire?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend knows that devolution is at the heart of the Government’s plans to level up and strengthen communities, and in the levelling-up White Paper the Government have fully committed to offering a devolution deal to every area that wants one by 2030.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Can I declare an interest to the Chancellor? I have actually worked in a small or medium-sized business. Unlike many people on these Benches, I have actually worked in manufacturing industry, and the manufacturing SMEs in my constituency are absolutely up against it with the cost of energy. What is he going to do to relieve them right now?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I think the hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and represents his constituency ably. In respect of small businesses, we have introduced a package —an energy price guarantee not only for households but for businesses—to the tune of £30 billion in the first six months. This is something that was absolutely necessary, and I am very proud of the fact that we acted very swiftly to protect businesses such as those in his constituency.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Government’s failed mini-Budget sent interest rates soaring, which is already causing mortgage pain for millions, but rising borrowing costs are now threatening our high streets too. Small businesses in Richmond Park and across the UK are seeing their loan repayments spiral and their financing options dry up. We have already seen the highest number of company insolvencies since the financial crisis—more than 5,600 businesses closed in the second quarter of this year—and SME debt is now at a staggering £204 billion. Most of those businesses will not see a penny from the cut to corporation tax. What is the Chancellor—
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I have stated a number of times already, the energy support package will help every single one of the businesses in the hon. Member’s constituency. I would be very pleased to see the Lib Dem growth plan. The anti-growth coalition carps from the side lines but it has nothing to say about growth.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The one thing businesses always want is security, and an understanding of what is going to happen for them next year. They are worrying about their borrowing costs for next year, and the Chancellor has already made that more difficult for them. He says he has a package for energy costs, but that lasts for only six months. Yesterday I spoke to a man who owns a leisure company. He said that his bill next year will go from £100,000 to £475,000, and that he will be closing. Why does the Chancellor not bring in a proper measure that will last more than six months?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point in respect of energy costs, and that is precisely why we intervened in the way that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced only a couple of weeks ago. The package is £60 billion for households and businesses across the next six months. That is a generous package, and we are listening.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Businesses of all sizes are struggling with Brexit, import costs, material costs, the weak pound against the dollar and the euro and increased wage and energy costs, and they still do not know what will happen when the Chancellor’s temporary reprieve ends in March. The clock is ticking. Calder Millerfield, a food manufacturing business in my constituency, has come back to me with its latest quote, with the relief applied. It is £944,000 per year, up from £160,000 last year. What will the Chancellor do to support manufacturing businesses now, because they will not survive those increases?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I have stated, the energy price guarantee does help businesses in a large measure. Also, I am not going to take lectures from the SNP about growth. In Scotland, for every year from 2010 to 2019, growth was lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom. I will not take any lessons about supporting business from the hon. Lady.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
The Chancellor speaks regularly to the Governor of the Bank of England on a wide range of matters. As my hon. Friend knows, the Bank of England sets monetary policy, including interest rates, independently of Government.
Mr Robertson
I thank the Minister for that response. Obviously, the world situation is the biggest cause of the rise in interest rates, but that rise is having a detrimental effect on mortgage payers and risks negativising the welcome help that the Government have provided through energy costs and tax cuts. Will the Chancellor and Ministers meet more regularly with the Bank of England to co-ordinate policy a little more closely?
Andrew Griffith
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is a passionate advocate in this place for his constituents. The Chancellor and I regularly meet the Bank of England and all the individual lending banks in the UK. My hon. Friend knows that interest rates have increased in every major economy, despite what the Opposition may claim. That is why it is so important that we provide help with energy costs and cutting taxes.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Surely Ministers must now apologise for the chaos that their mini-Budget, with its £45 billion of unfunded spending commitments and tax cuts, caused to the bond markets. Is it not now a fact that there is a Tory premium on every interest rate rise for every borrower in this country? They are not going to forget that when the election comes.
Andrew Griffith
I think we all understand that there is a clear divide in this House. The Government are supporting growth, providing support for energy bills, giving the economy the confidence and certainty that it needs this winter, and bringing forward supply-side measures that will boost the economy, not being on the side of striking workers who are bringing this economy to a halt.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to send my condolences to the families of all those killed in the tragic accident in Creeslough, County Donegal, last week. My parents came from quite nearby. It is a beautiful place with a close community, and they are very much in our prayers right now.
I welcome the Minister to his place. I am sure that he and the Chancellor’s team wanted their first Budget to be remembered, perhaps even studied in years to come. Well, they have certainly achieved that ambition. Two-year fixed mortgage rates are above 6% for the first time since 2008, and they have risen sharply since the Chancellor’s mini-Budget. Everyone coming off such a rate will face much higher payments over the coming year, possibly hundreds of pounds a month more. Why should people who have worked hard to buy their own home pay the price for the Government’s mistakes?
Andrew Griffith
I add my comments and thoughts to those on the incident in County Donegal last week.
We have already talked about our comprehensive energy support package, which will help not just every household this winter and prevent the uncertainty of energy bills that were forecast potentially to reach £6,500 per home, but help businesses. The Government are on the side of businesses and keen to improve the supply side of our economy, so that we can grow to create the tax revenues for our high-quality public services.
Mr McFadden
This morning, the Bank of England made a further intervention in the markets, warning of
“a material risk to UK financial stability”.
That risk comes directly from the Chancellor’s mini-Budget two and a half weeks ago. How much more will Government borrowing cost next year as a result of the rising gilt yields since the Chancellor’s statement on 23 September?
Andrew Griffith
As I have already observed, we are seeing interest rates rising in every major western economy. When Opposition Front Benchers are finished with their British exceptionalism, perhaps they will lift their eyes and notice that. What is more important is that we are protecting consumers and households through the difficult winter months ahead, and cutting taxes. Those are measures that Government Members support and Opposition Members oppose.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Today, the International Monetary Fund observed that the Chancellor’s unfunded tax cuts have complicated the fight against inflation. As a result, the Bank of England is expected to increase the base rate to levels not seen since 2008. Families have already struggled with increasing energy prices, Kantar says that grocery inflation stands at 13.9%, and Santander is preparing for increased mortgage defaults. What is the Minister and his Treasury team doing to tackle the absolute chaos that they have created?
Andrew Griffith
I understand that the nationalist party likes to talk the country down at every opportunity, but the reality is that we are taking the action that we need, tackling the supply side, tackling the strikes that are grinding down the economy and building the energy supply that we need to help strengthen our economy and our currency. The hon. Member’s party opposes nuclear and opposes more oil and gas exploration.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Chris Philp)
A critical part of the Government’s growth plan is road, rail and energy infrastructure. We will be introducing legislation shortly to ensure that the delivery of that critical infrastructure is massively sped up.
Ben Everitt
I am grateful for the investment in physical infrastructure, but those on the Treasury Front Bench will know that we need the skills for the future to deliver the jobs for the future to make that infrastructure investment sustainable. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the idea of MKU: a brand-new university in Milton Keynes? Every single Minister and Secretary of State I have spoken to about it thinks that it is a good idea. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to get it off paper and get boots on the ground?
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a tireless champion for the great city of Milton Keynes. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss the idea along with colleagues from, perhaps, the Department for Education. I note that Milton Keynes has already received £23 million through the towns fund, but I am happy to meet him to discuss the idea.
John Stevenson
Growing the economy is about improving people’s lives as well as improving the success of places such as Carlisle. To achieve that, we need both public and private investment, and, in the case of public investment, it is infrastructure that will make the real difference. Given the rise in the cost of infrastructure projects, will the Minister confirm that where such projects have a shortfall in funding but are ready to go, the Government will step in and give additional funding to support them?
Chris Philp
It is very much our intention to speed up projects where they are ready to go. The growth plan announced a few weeks ago made clear our commitment to doing that. The last spending review provided, I think, about £100 billion of funding towards critical economic infrastructure. Where we can speed up projects, we will certainly be doing that. One project that we have in mind for exactly that is the A66 northern trans-Pennine route, which I believe goes not far from my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
In 2017, former Conservative energy Minister Charles Hendry conducted a review of the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. He gave it the thumbs up, but since then successive Governments have not pursued it. Given the energy crisis we are in, will the Minister consider reopening the business case? It could be a fantastic source of green energy for our country.
Chris Philp
The Government are extremely interested in all forms of new energy generation. We are determined to make sure that the United Kingdom is electricity-independent. We are looking at all kinds of projects, including of course marine projects. I understand that when the Swansea scheme was investigated there were questions about value for money, but I am sure that we would be very happy to take a careful look at any proposition that is put forward, if the hon. Gentleman wants to do so.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
When it comes to the delivery of projects, I cannot help but admire the speed at which the Government managed to transform Downing Street from a nightclub into a casino. I have one ask that is not a gamble. When are the Government going to deliver the Acorn project in the north-east of Scotland?
Chris Philp
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor says that that is something we are examining carefully. The hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the growth plan is extremely unfair. The real risk is in not having a growth plan. The real risk is in having taxes that are too high. The real risk is not investing in infrastructure. It is clear that this Government have a growth plan and the Opposition have no plan.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Of course it is always right to look for efficiencies and try to get better value for money for the taxpayer. As we look for spending cuts, could my right hon. Friend confirm that they will not come at the expense of reductions in vital infrastructure spending in our regions, not least in the north of England?
Chris Philp
I am pleased to say, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said when he introduced the growth plan, that expediting critical infrastructure was an important part of that plan. Without critical infrastructure, we are not going to see the growth in jobs or wages and the prosperity that we all want. The Government will do everything that they can to speed up the delivery of those projects.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
We do not know much yet about the Government’s new investment zones, but in order to achieve success for the primary investment in them, will the Government have specifically targeted funds for infrastructure projects in those zones? If so, will this be a further unfunded expenditure commitment?
Chris Philp
I think the Chancellor set out the investment zone concept very clearly. There will be, by agreement with local authorities, planning freedoms and very significant tax cuts. Infrastructure investments are being handled separately to that, but it would be reasonable to expect a degree of co-ordination between the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Department for Transport, as they consider the way investment zones interact with transport projects.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
Reforming the EU’s directive on the bonus cap is not about paying people more. All it ever did was increase base pay, regardless of performance. It was never a cap on total remuneration, and no one should pretend that it was.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
That was total nonsense. As some families in Battersea struggle to keep up with the rising cost of living, the Government have chosen to help bankers by removing the cap on their bonuses, while maintaining the cap on household social security. Despite soaring bills and growing inflation, the cap has remained stagnant since 2016, plunging hundreds of thousands of families into deep poverty. The cap on social security is cruel. How can the Chancellor seriously justify removing the cap on bankers’ bonuses but not the social security cap? Will the Minister have a word with his colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions and change that?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Lady has fully booked her place as a member of the anti-growth coalition. The Government are not afraid to be on the side of the people who create the wealth that funds our public services. In 1979 the top 1% of earners paid about 10% of income tax; they now pay 29.1%. That is three times as much.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that scrapping the cap on bankers’ bonuses will increase not only competitiveness, but tax receipts?
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
At a time when my constituents are struggling to make ends meet, struggling to put food on the table and struggling to put the heating on, the Government have decided that the way to increase growth in the economy is to lift the cap on bankers’ bonuses. Not a single person or a single bank that I spoke to in the City as shadow City Minister said that this was the right policy to drive growth in the economy. Does the Minister really think that the policy will drive growth in the economy, or will we see yet another U-turn from his Government?
Andrew Griffith
I can assure the hon. Lady that this Government are going to grow the economy. We will grow the economy by releasing the burden, or the yoke, of taxation, whether that is on ordinary people by cutting the basic rate of tax from 20p to 19p, or by today reversing the increase in national insurance, or by cutting the taxes on the businesses that she has been meeting—I welcome that—by reversing the increase in corporation tax next year.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
This Government will back first-time buyers by increasing the level at which they start paying stamp duty. A young couple can now purchase a property for up to £425,000 without paying tax.
Anthony Mangnall
A core tenet of our belief is to help everyone on to the housing ladder, so what assessment has the Minister made since the growth plan about helping people and areas to build houses for those who need and want them?
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will make a statement to the House in the coming weeks.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
A constituent wrote to me and said, “What world do the Tories live in? I guess one where you protect the rich and wealthy. The suggestion that the Treasury thinks that a person on £30k a year can buy a home in London is frankly laughable and salt in the wound.” How does the Minister expect my constituents in Vauxhall who are already struggling to pay their rent to save to buy a new home on a salary of £30k?
Andrew Griffith
I will be very happy to write to the hon. Lady and to talk to her constituents about the unprecedented intervention that we have made to protect them this winter from their energy bills, putting valuable certainty and confidence not just into every household, but into every business and the economy. That is why the International Monetary Fund has today increased its growth forecast for the United Kingdom.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Kwasi Kwarteng)
The hon. Gentleman will have seen that I have brought forward the publication of the medium-term fiscal plan to 31 October.
Jamie Stone
I think the House will agree that the uncertainty over the date has not exactly helped forward planning on benefits. Any real cut in benefits will mean people not having enough money to buy food and clothing for their children, so does the Chancellor agree that increasing benefits in line with inflation is the only fair way forward? Indeed, it would be immoral to do otherwise. As the chief executive of Inverness citizens advice bureau pointed out to me, such benefit money is spent in the local economy and is a boost to what the Chancellor has talked about many times: growing the economy.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am delighted to see that one member of the anti-growth coalition is focusing on growth. However, on the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, he will understand that the medium-term fiscal plan is coming out on 31 October, and I will not prejudge any measures in it.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the levelling-up fund is an important part of the plan for growth, and has he seen Harlow Council’s levelling-up fund bid, which I wholeheartedly support? It would transform a derelict area of our town centre into a thriving cultural quarter with jobs and investment, tackling antisocial behaviour. Those abandoned buildings have blighted the heart of our town for far too long.
Kwasi Kwarteng
My right hon. Friend is a redoubtable and highly persuasive representative of his constituents. I would be happy to talk to him about what we can do together to help his great constituency.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Bank of England has had to intervene not once, not twice, but three times now. The impact on pension funds is very significant, and many of my constituents will be deeply worried. What assessment has the Chancellor made of the impact of potential additional pressures on the economy on public sector pensions and the damage to pension funds for pensioners up and down this country? Is that another reason why he did not want to publish the OBR’s forecast at the time of his mini-Budget?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The OBR will be fully scoring and giving a forecast ahead of the medium-term fiscal plan. I speak very frequently to the Governor of the Bank of England, who is absolutely independent and is very effectively managing what is a global situation.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision to bring forward the medium-term plan and the OBR forecast; he has listened, and he is right. However, may I caution him to reach out as much as he can across both sides of the House, to be certain that he can get through this House the measures he puts forward to underpin that forecast? Any failure to do so will unsettle the markets.
Kwasi Kwarteng
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He does a brilliant job of chairing his Committee and is full of wise counsel; he is absolutely right that we will and should canvass opinion widely ahead of the publication of the plan.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The OBR was the creation of a Conservative Government and was designed to curtail wishful thinking in economic policy, so does the Chancellor agree that it is unfortunate, to say the least, that we seem to have Cabinet Ministers briefing against the economic expertise of that independent institution?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As far as I am concerned—I speak to investors regularly about this—the OBR is an institution that commands wide respect, not only in the UK but across the world. Its independence, to me, is absolutely sacrosanct.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
The energy price guarantee is an outstanding part of the growth plan. It is key, but far too few businesses and households know about it. May I urge the Chancellor to have a nationwide mail-out campaign, coupled with the Government taking the lead on the reduction of energy in all public buildings, as Germany and other countries are doing? That would have the twin benefits of saving consumers money and reducing taxpayer subsidies.
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend makes an excellent suggestion. Obviously I am very careful not to make unfunded spending commitments on the Floor of the House, but his suggestion is very well made and we should look into it.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor’s refusal to publish OBR forecasts just over two weeks ago played a key role in falling confidence in the pound, rising borrowing costs and market panic. His woeful decision to avoid scrutiny by gagging the OBR helped to increase mortgage costs for working people, who are now paying the price for Conservative failure.
The Chancellor’s behaviour has been described by the former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney as “undercutting” economic institutions. Jonathan Haskel, a member of the Monetary Policy Committee, has made it clear that a
“sidelined OBR generates more uncertainty”.
Does the Chancellor accept that they are right?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I have repeatedly said today, the OBR will have a fully forecasted and scored response to the medium-term fiscal plan in less than three weeks.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Richard Fuller)
At the 2021 spending review, the Government announced an increase in public expenditure on R&D to £20 billion a year by 2024-25, including funding for association to EU programmes.
George Freeman
I thank the Chancellor and his team for making the Treasury a growth Department. Do they agree that innovation-led growth is particularly important if we want to drive up productivity, competitiveness and inward investment, and that our high-growth sectors such as space, agritech and fusion have a big role to play? Will the Economic Secretary specifically reassure those in the R&D community that he will not be tempted to reduce the allocation for Horizon or for science and research in the comprehensive spending review? That would reassure the markets.
Richard Fuller
Very few Members can look back on a track record of commitment to R&D as significant as that of my hon. Friend, both as a Minister and as a Back Bencher. I am happy to confirm to him that we will abide by the spending review 2021 decisions, and that that includes funding for core Innovate UK programmes, for association to Horizon Europe and for the Advanced Research and Invention Agency.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The Minister needs to be much more specific about the Horizon Europe programme. Is he aware that the Nobel laureate Sir Andre Geim has said that top academics are leaving the country in despair because the Government are not negotiating on Horizon Europe? When will the Government do something—now?
Richard Fuller
The right hon. Lady is right about the importance of this issue. The United Kingdom absolutely wishes to move forward, and we would hope that the European Union would move forward apace with us to reach an agreement.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Richard Fuller)
The loan charge was announced in the 2016 Budget as part of a package of measures to tackle disguised remuneration tax avoidance. In the 2022 spring statement, it was estimated that the package would produce an overall Exchequer yield of £3.4 billion. The changes resulting from the 2019 independent review of the loan charge have reduced the Exchequer yield by an estimated £620 million.
Mike Amesbury
Too many ordinary people are facing huge bills, untold distress and, in some cases, personal harm and indeed suicide because of the loan charge scandal. Can the Minister and the Government now commit themselves to finally commissioning a truly independent review to deal with this mess?
Richard Fuller
I do not think that any Member who has met constituents who have been affected by the loan charge can have failed to be moved by the emotional and psychological impact that it has had on many of them. It is therefore right for me, as a Minister, to look at the issue carefully, and I can say to the hon. Member that I will engage all interested parties.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Felicity Buchan)
It is a pleasure to answer my first question at the Dispatch Box, and to reply to the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who responded to my maiden speech.
The White Paper “Levelling Up the United Kingdom” set out a clear plan to level up every corner of the UK by 2030. We are also driving growth and unlocking housing across the UK with our new investment zones, and we are continuing to invest billions in regional infrastructure. That includes £1.7 billion allocated under the levelling-up fund, of which £500 million went to the north.
Dan Jarvis
It is a pleasure to see the Minister at the Dispatch Box, and I congratulate her on her appointment.
Previous Chancellors have not delivered the level of transformative resource required for levelling up. I know that the present Chancellor understands the huge potential that exists throughout the north of England, but it seems to many of us that the levelling-up agenda is sipping in the last chance saloon. Can the Minister say what will be done differently under this new Chancellor?
Felicity Buchan
We are absolutely committed to the levelling-up agenda. South Yorkshire received £570 million through the regional cities transport scheme, £95 million through the levelling-up fund and £46 million through the shared prosperity fund, and our ambitions for levelling up continue.
Judith Cummins
Building on Bradford’s city of culture win and in a momentous year for Rugby League, I am supporting the plan for the transformation and regeneration of the home of the Bradford Bulls, the iconic Odsal stadium, to become a world-class sports, music and culture arena. This plan would be an incubator for the ambitions of the entire Bradford district, delivering more than £1 billion of socioeconomic benefits. Following the Bank of England’s repeated interventions, can the Minister confirm that round 2 of the levelling-up fund will still be going ahead in full, and will she and the Chancellor demonstrate that by meeting me, Bradford Council, the Bradford Bulls and the Rugby Football League to discuss our catalyst for growth?
Felicity Buchan
I can confirm that we will be going ahead with the second round of the levelling-up fund. There should be decisions by the end of the year, and I wish the hon. Lady well with her bid. An independent assessment of the bids is going on at the moment, but if that meeting is possible, we will do it. Clearly we would need to decide if that was appropriate. I congratulate her on her success in the first round of the levelling-up bids, where she got £20 million for the Squire Lane leisure centre.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The renewable energy sector is vital to my constituency and the neighbouring area, and it has done a great deal to level up the local economy. Can the Minister give me an assurance that support for the sector will continue?
Felicity Buchan
We are very much committed to the sector, and I would be delighted to sit down with my hon. Friend to discuss this further.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
A key part of levelling up is the creation of investment zones, and the Chancellor will be aware of the proposals for a gigafactory at Coventry airport to support UK automotive manufacturing. Does the Minister agree that the joint application by the Labour Coventry City Council and the Conservative Warwickshire County Council for an investment zone at Coventry airport should be encouraged?
Felicity Buchan
We are encouraging all higher and local authorities to look at the investment zones and to apply. I think they are a great tool for development, so I would absolutely encourage that application.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
“Never has so much chaos been inflicted on so many by so few” will be the motto that will reverberate down the eons from this Government. Do they actually still believe in this fairy tale of levelling up? Is it not now just a matter of how far they are going to level us all down?
Felicity Buchan
Everything we are doing is being driven by a growth agenda so that we can level up all the way across the United Kingdom.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
The Eden Project North is, as far as I am aware, the only project in the second phase of the levelling-up round that has planning permission and land allocated. I would like to know when the decisions will be made so that we can get this shovel-ready scheme going. Eden has £50 million to put on the table, and we are asking for £50 million as match funding, in effect.
Felicity Buchan
Decisions on the second phase of the levelling-up round will be made by the end of the year, and I wish my hon. Friend well.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Chris Philp)
I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. If the hon. Member’s question relates to the operating budget of the DWP, we expect Departments to live within their existing CSR21 allocations. If his question relates to the level of benefits more generally, a statutory process is undertaken every year and no decisions have yet been made. They will be made in due course in the normal way.
David Linden
I thank the Minister for his answer, if not for his recent tweets. Has he had any representations from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to increase social security payments in line with inflation? Far too often, this Government talk about their agenda for growth, but failure to increase in line with inflation will result only in a growth in food banks in Easterhouse, in fuel poverty in Carmyle and in child poverty in Baillieston. When is the Minister going to do the right thing and commit to raising social security in line with inflation and not with earnings?
Chris Philp
I am obviously not going to offer any kind of running commentary on the ongoing internal discussions. I have said that the normal ordinary statutory process is ongoing, but the Government are mindful of the cost of living pressures that people are facing. I would draw the hon. Member’s attention to the large increase in the national minimum wage—I think about 7%—that took place last April or May, and there are now more vacancies in the economy than there are people on unemployment benefits.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that the Government will not balance the forthcoming tax cuts on the backs of the poorest people in our country?
Chris Philp
The Government’s first objective is to ensure that the economy is growing. That will help to lift wages and to create new jobs and a sustainable tax base for our public services, but as we make the decisions that my right hon. Friend refers to, we are going to balance considerations of fairness and the cost of living pressures that people suffer with the interests of the taxpayers who are working hard to pay tax.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Dame Meg Hillier.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister talks about vacancies in the job market. There are vacancies, of course, but many of my constituents earn under £12,000 a year. They will not benefit from the tax cut, so they rely on universal credit to make up the gap. They cannot afford to work because of the high cost of childcare. They are already on the poverty line. What is his advice to them? Will he give us some comfort that the Government will make the right decision on uprating benefits?
Chris Philp
I have already explained that the normal statutory process is under way. When it comes to helping people on lower incomes, I mentioned the very significant increase in the minimum wage just a few months ago. We made an unprecedented intervention this year, amounting to £37 billion, which is disproportionately directed towards people on lower incomes. The one third of households on lower incomes are receiving an extra £1,200 this year.
The hon. Lady also referred to the fact that people earning £12,570 or less pay not a penny of national insurance and not a penny of income tax, which is thanks to the action of this Conservative Government.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Richard Fuller)
The Government are encouraging business innovation in many ways, of which I will enumerate four. As I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), there is a significant uplift in R&D expenditure, with £150 million of innovation loans over the spending period, research and development tax relief, long-term investment in technology and science—a competition is providing up to £500 million in Government support—and the British Business Bank is supporting innovative businesses, including through the future fund.
David Simmonds
Owners and entrepreneurs behind small businesses such as Code Ninjas in Bridge Street in my constituency are a key part of the Government’s growth agenda. What steps does my hon. Friend have in mind to enable such small and medium-sized enterprises to create further jobs and growth?
Richard Fuller
I am not sure if I got the name quite correct. Was it Comms Ninjas?
Richard Fuller
Oh, right. Perhaps I can visit my hon. Friend’s constituency to learn what the company does.
More generally, the growth plan focuses on important measures to support small businesses that wish to grow, including by making the £1 million annual investment allowance permanent, by looking to expand the amount of money that can be given through the seed enterprise investment scheme to help small businesses to grow and, most importantly, through the Government’s energy price support this winter.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Kwasi Kwarteng)
This Government are relentlessly focused on growing the economy. Putin’s barbaric war in Ukraine continues to put pressure on gas prices so, with predictions of typical bills reaching between £4,000 and £6,500 a year, people needed immediate support to get them through this winter.
Last month we set out the growth plan, which will focus on breaking out of the high-tax, low-growth cycle in which we are currently trapped. This will put more money into people’s pockets and raise living standards for all our people. This week I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) to inform him that I will set out the medium-term fiscal plan on 31 October, and I wish to remind the House that it will be accompanied by a full economic and fiscal forecast published by the Office for Budget Responsibility.
Stephanie Peacock
The Chancellor sat in a Cabinet that committed to increasing social security payments in line with inflation. Why will he not honour that promise?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I have repeatedly said, no decisions have been made. The usual statutory process is being undertaken, and we will have more detail at the time of the medium-term fiscal plan.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Chancellor will know that Essex is a pro-growth county and a hub of economic growth. To support job creation and more economic growth, will he commit to funding the dualling of the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey and, importantly, along the route that the county council, businesses and the local community have specified?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for her role in the Cabinet and the Government. She is a fantastic colleague. I wish to confirm that the A120 between Braintree and the A12 remains under active consideration, alongside the rest of the third road investment strategy pipeline.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Since the Chancellor’s disastrous mini-Budget just 18 days ago, we have seen wild swings in the value of the pound, gilt yields up 100 basis points in a single day and the Bank of England stepping in because of, in its words,
“a material risk to UK financial stability”.
The International Monetary Fund has now said that UK growth is to slow further next year. This is a British crisis, made in Downing Street; no Government are sabotaging their own country’s economic credibility as this Government are. Are the Chancellor and the Prime Minister the last people left on Earth who think their plan is working?
Kwasi Kwarteng
To pick up on a point, the IMF said today that the plan—the mini-Budget—has increased the forecast for growth. That is precisely the opposite of what the hon. Lady has said. It is very clear where we stand on this. We have pro-growth, pro-enterprise, pro-business Conservatives on one side and the anti-growth coalition on the other—they want to tax more and commit us to low growth.
Rachel Reeves
The Chancellor is in a dangerous state of denial, but the costs of these mistakes are all too real for everyone else: borrowing costs up; growth down; and mortgage payments set to increase by £500 a month. Now the Government scrabble around looking for cuts, hitting the most vulnerable and our public services. It does not need to be this way. Will the Chancellor put aside his pride, do the right thing for our country, end this trickle-down nonsense and reverse the Budget?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Which of the tax cuts do the Opposition want to stop? Do they want to stop the cut in the basic rate? Are they committed to having a high tax economy? The other thing I suggest is that the hon. Lady should get her facts right; the IMF today has said that our growth is going up, not down.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Richard Fuller)
Eastbourne is indeed beautiful, as are North East Bedfordshire and many other parts of the country. My hon. Friend is right to talk about the importance of VAT to the hospitality industry, particularly as we moved through the period of covid recovery. As we now move towards the growth plan, we need to look at the level of taxes on small businesses in general. That is a key part of the work I will be looking at as part of the tax simplification plan.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
Push payment fraud is a growing problem, which the Government take very seriously. That is why we will be taking powers in the Financial Services and Markets Bill that will mandate reimbursement to consumers.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Kwasi Kwarteng
My right hon. Friend was 100% right to notice that the energy intervention was exactly the right thing. We are going to have a commitment to fiscal responsibility, which will stabilise the economic situation and picture, and I am sure that her constituents will fully understand what the growth plan is all about: putting more money into their pockets so that we can have a growing and dynamic economy.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Kwasi Kwarteng
As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said earlier, most of the measures that constitute the £37 billion intervention were targeted directly at the vulnerable constituents of all of us in this House. The energy price guarantee will also be greatly beneficial to people across our country who are suffering because of the cost of living. The Government are committed to a huge amount of intervention, and our top priority is making sure that everyone gets through challenging times as best they can.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Kwasi Kwarteng
Absolutely. I am in frequent contact with my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, and we have sequestered and dedicated a pot to help people who are off the gas grid. We are happy to help my hon. Friend and her constituents in this challenging time.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I are engaged with all the regulators, particularly the Prudential Regulation Authority, and we will be absolutely committed to getting to the bottom of what has happened, particularly in the long-dated gilt market, which has been over-levered in the past few weeks.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I have said repeatedly, I am not going to prejudge what is in the medium-term fiscal plan, which will be fully scrutinised not only by the OBR but, I am sure, by my right hon. Friend. I do not think that it is right for me to prejudge or anticipate those measures today.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Despite the Chancellor’s confident words, the IMF is predicting that inflation will last longer in this country than in other similar economies. In my constituency of Edinburgh West, which has half the national average rate of unemployment and claimants, people are so concerned that more than half of them are talking about cutting their essential budgets, and, according to recent reports, 20% are concerned that they might have to turn to food banks for the first time. When will the Chancellor reassess the potential impact of this growth plan and accept that maybe he has got it wrong?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The IMF specifically said this morning that the 2023 forecast for growth in this country has gone up as a direct consequence of the mini-Budget. In respect of helping constituents up and down the land, we have already committed £37 billion of energy support this year and a further £60 billion to houses and businesses over the next six months, and we are committed to making sure that every one of our constituents gets through this winter as best they can.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Numerous residents such as those at Harwood Bar caravan park have been in touch with me about the £400 energy support scheme. The previous Chancellor confirmed that there was an equivalent scheme for those in caravan parks and park homes. Could the Chancellor please provide an update for my constituents in Hyndburn and Haslingden?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As I said in relation to heating oil, a pot of money is going to be reserved to help people who are off the grid. We have already made announcements about that, but I would be very happy to speak with my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The upkeep of the Chester city walls costs about £600,000 a year, but that money has to come out of the local authority’s highways budget. Can the Government set aside a small amount of money to help local authorities with the stewardship of internationally important heritage assets?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Felicity Buchan)
The Government continue to support the heritage and cultural sector. There are several sources of funding from Government arm’s length bodies such as the National Lottery Heritage Fund and Historic England’s repair grants, so I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look into those.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
Since the 1970s, residents in Eastleigh have long been expecting, and have been promised at times, funding for the Chickenhall Lane bypass, including being allocated funding in the 2015 Red Book. Will the Minister agree to meet me and Hampshire County Council to discuss getting this sorted for people who have simply waited far too long?
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Chris Philp)
My hon. Friend is a tireless advocate for that and other projects in his constituency. I and perhaps colleagues from the Department for Transport would be delighted to meet him and his county council colleagues to discuss that important project.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Chancellor was warned that unfunded tax cuts would force the Bank of England to increase rates and that is exactly what has happened. The Bank of England has said today that, in effect, the mini-Budget has caused a material risk to Britain’s financial stability. Can the Chancellor explain how people are supposed to pay their mortgages, which have gone up by £500 on average and £900 in London? What is he going to do about it, because it is not acceptable that his incompetence is risking people’s livelihoods?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I have two points to make on that. First, the Bank of England certainly did not say that the mini-Budget increased risk. Secondly, as rates are rising throughout the world, there is exposure. That is precisely why we thought that it was absolutely right to have the energy intervention, which is for two years—let us not forget that the Labour plan was for only six months —and to reduce the burden on people by reducing taxes.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Talking to people working in the housing industry in Winchester, I have found that they are not convinced that the stamp duty reduction will help first-time buyers while inflation and particularly mortgage rates are creeping up. Lenders are coming back with some good rates, and the Chancellor will know that, but when he delivers his statement on 31 October, will he ensure that it has confidence at its heart and that it is—knowing him, it will be—a relentlessly positive statement, so that we can push confidence right the way through the market?
Kwasi Kwarteng
It will be relentlessly upbeat. These are challenging times, but we have to live within our means and there will be an absolute iron commitment to fiscal responsibility.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Will the Minister admit that, if the Government do not increase the guarantee credit component of pension credit in line with inflation this year, they are effectively cutting the incomes of our poorest pensioners when they need help most?
Kwasi Kwarteng
We are absolutely committed to fairness and to helping the most vulnerable in our society—we are always committed to that—and I will not prejudge or anticipate measures in the medium-term fiscal plan this afternoon.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the cuts to national insurance will help not only working households, but businesses and the public sector, such as schools?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is absolutely right. The reversal of the planned increase in national insurance will help businesses, individuals and the institutions to which he refers.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Can the Chancellor state how much the investment zones are worth and how they will be funded?
Kwasi Kwarteng
There will be more detail about investment zones. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will be updating the House on the specifics of the zones.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The UK has rightly frozen around £30 billion of Russian foreign currency reserves. A number of countries are moving from freezing those assets to seizing them to pay reparations to Ukraine. Will my right hon. Friend look at similar measures from the UK?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Those measures have been discussed in the past; I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) talked about that earlier in the year. Those schemes are always being looked at in the light of what is an increasingly bleak and volatile situation in Russia and Ukraine.
Ukraine
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Ind)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement on our policy to deter and, if required, respond to the use of nuclear weapons by President Putin.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Alec Shelbrooke)
Russia’s continuing assault on Ukraine is an unprovoked and premeditated attack against a sovereign democratic state and it continues to threaten global security. This week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is meeting with Defence Ministers in Brussels to discuss further support for Ukraine, and later today my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be speaking to members of the G7.
I can assure the House that the UK and our allies remain steadfast and united in our support for Ukraine. As previously set out to the House, Defence is playing a central role in the UK’s response to the Russian invasion, providing £2.3 billion-worth of military support and leading in the international response.
We were the first European country to provide lethal aid to Ukraine. To date, we have sent more than 10,000 anti-tank missiles, multiple-launch rocket systems, more than 200 armoured vehicles, more than 120 logistics vehicles, six Stormer vehicles fitted with Starstreak launchers and hundreds of missiles, as well as maritime Brimstone missiles. In addition, we have supplied almost 100,000 rounds of artillery ammunition, nearly 3 million rounds of small arms ammunition, 2,600 anti-structure munitions and 4.5 tonnes of plastic explosive.
Defence is also providing basic training to Ukrainian soldiers in the UK. To date, we have trained over 6,000 Ukrainian recruits in the UK, and we continually review and adjust the course to meet their requirements. Defence will continue to respond decisively to Ukraine’s requests and the equipment is playing a crucial role in stalling the Russian advance and supporting our Ukrainian friends.
President Putin’s comments on nuclear are irresponsible. No other country is talking about nuclear use. We do not see this as a nuclear crisis.
Mr Ellwood
Thanks to our support and that of allies, Ukrainian forces have done the unthinkable in pushing back Russian force. However, with Putin now on the back foot and the third largest military in the world humiliated, this conflict has entered a darker chapter and we cannot be bystanders. Putin cannot be seen to lose this war and, as his response to the Kerch bridge attack shows, he is stooping to ever more unconventional tactics. The threat of Putin’s turning to tactical low-yield nuclear weapons remains low, but it has increased, posing questions for Britain and the United States that must be addressed before, not after, that line is crossed.
Russian military doctrine allows first use of nuclear weapons in response to conventional attacks on Russian soil. That is why the sham referendums took place in the Donbas region—so that Putin could claim it was part of the motherland. In response, as things stand, our formal position is so-called strategic ambiguity: the promise of a response, but no public clarity on what that might be.
We gained a reputation for blinking when it came to Georgia, on chemical weapons use in Syria and when the Crimea was annexed. I believe we should state now what our conventional response would be to Putin’s either deploying nuclear weapons directly or targeting hazardous infrastructure such as chemical or indeed civil nuclear plants. Such clarity could be the very deterrent that helps to prevent such hostile actions from taking place, rather than the vague position we have now.
Our adversaries—not just Russia—must know and fear the military consequences of daring to resort to using nuclear weapons, even if they are low yield. This is not an operational decision but a political call. We have a duty to do all we can to deter Putin from going nuclear. Let us not leave it to chance. Let us exhibit the robust statecraft and engagement that this unpredictable war now requires.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s comments. I reiterate what I said at the start: President Putin’s comments are irresponsible. No other country is talking about nuclear use, and we do not see this as a nuclear crisis. President Putin should be clear that, for the UK and our allies, any use of nuclear weapons at all would break the taboo on nuclear use that has held since 1945 and lead to severe consequences for Russia.
President Putin has launched an illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. His forces continue to commit senseless atrocities. The people of Ukraine seek only to restore their sovereignty and territorial integrity, and we will continue to support Ukraine’s right to defend.
My right hon. Friend speaks of tactical nuclear missiles, but nuclear is nuclear. I reiterate what the Secretary-General of NATO said:
“President Putin’s nuclear rhetoric is dangerous. It is reckless. NATO is of course vigilant. We monitor closely what Russia does. Russia must understand that nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought. And it will have severe consequences for Russia if they use nuclear weapons. And this has been very clearly conveyed to Russia. So we will continue to support Ukraine. And we will continue to support them in their efforts to liberate even more territory, because they have the right to do so.”
It is not and never has been tactically smart to outline exactly what the response would be to any potential situation. We will continue on the lines that this Government and, indeed, the Secretary-General have outlined.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the new Minister to his place. It is because Ukraine is winning that Putin’s behaviour is becoming so volatile. The sham referenda, the irresponsible nuclear sabre-rattling, the missile attacks on civilians—these are the hallmarks of a tyrant on the ropes and a tyrant who is losing.
Labour stands with our friends in Ukraine. With our unshakeable commitment to NATO, the Minister knows that he has our full support for the actions the Government are taking to help Ukraine win. Yesterday’s missile attacks on civilians are a significant escalation. The NATO Secretary-General was right to describe the attacks as “horrific and indiscriminate”.
Ministers have Labour’s full support in countering Putin’s aggression. In that spirit, I ask the Minister when he will set out a long-term strategy of support for Ukraine, so that we can make sure that Putin’s war ends in failure. Can he confirm that the NLAW—next generation light anti-tank weapon—replacement orders have finally been placed? When does he expect to replenish our depleted weapons stockpiles? What assessment has he made of the worrying statements by Lukashenko and the continued presence of Russian troops and armour in Belarus?
I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the concerning media reports of the withdrawal of almost 700 British troops currently deployed to our NATO ally Estonia, without any planned replacement. That risks sending the wrong message at the wrong time, and it has worried our international allies. We cannot walk away until the job is done. With that in mind, will he reassure the House that he will not withdraw any further UK troops from our allies, and that the UK will meet our NATO commitments?
Finally, as more bodies are unearthed at the sites of war crimes, we remember them and we remember those killed yesterday in Putin’s criminal missile strikes. Does the Minister agree that the best justice for those killed is victory for Ukraine, a free and sovereign nation, and war crime tribunals for those responsible?
Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments and I look forward to working across the Dispatch Boxes on these vital issues.
On the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the horrific war crimes we have seen unfold every time there is a Russian retreat, I think that every decent human being is appalled. I am proud that the UK Government are funding the International Criminal Court, and we will do everything we can to support Ukraine in bringing the perpetrators of these horrific crimes to justice.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I come back to him with a written answer on the postures from Lukashenko.
On Estonia, the overall capability of our commitment there is far more important than the number of troops alone. We have committed to strengthening that capability over the forthcoming years. I was in Estonia, and indeed Latvia and Lithuania, in my previous role in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I have seen at first hand the work that takes place there. All our NATO allies can be reassured that we are committed to making sure that the NATO frontline is secure. We work with colleagues and there will be variation in how that is done.
With regard to support, the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has set up the international support fund. This country contributed £250 million to that, and I believe the total figure is now above €400 million. That is in place to help support Ukraine as this war moves forward and the conflict carries on, so that it can use that money not only in the conflict but to rebuild and, of course, ensure it has the ammunition supplies and things it needs.
With regard to NLAW and our weapons supply, we are working with industrial supply chains and are confident that we will have the ability to defend ourselves and to give support, but we do not comment on operational capability beyond that.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his position. What has happened over the past few days is a war crime if ever there was a war crime, and I hope that the Government and the whole alliance will now commit to the pursuance of all those responsible for the deliberate targeting of civilian areas. There can be no respite and we should be sanctioning anybody we think has had anything to do with it.
I agree that ambiguity is not the same as no plan. The purpose behind what Putin is doing now is to split the alliance—everything he does is to split the alliance. What he wants is for part of the alliance to get wobbly and worried about the potential use of nuclear weapons and to start calling for negotiations. The critical issue here is that all of the alliance must remain united on the idea that we have a plan, but it is for the Minister to judge whether we would ever use nuclear weapons, not for us to say whether we would, and the alliance would stay together.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind comments. On his point about nuclear rhetoric, we have seen this pattern before. President Putin uses it as a sabre to rattle, to try to deter us and distract our efforts in Ukraine. It simply will not work because, fundamentally, NATO is a nuclear defensive alliance, and it will be for all the time that nuclear weapons exist. It is one that has been successful, and it is one that President Putin should take notice of. What is important at this moment in time, as we talk about the nuclear sabre-rattling, is that we stay calm, analyse the situation as it is and demand that he steps back from this dangerous nuclear rhetoric, so that there cannot be any miscalculation on any side as we move forward.
On war crimes, I fundamentally agree with what my right hon. Friend said. We will do everything to bring to justice those who have perpetuated these horrific crimes, which go against every aspect of the Geneva convention. Every day that this war goes on, more and more war crimes are committed.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I am pleased to welcome the new Minister to his place. These barbaric attacks by Russia on Ukraine’s civilian population and infrastructure, together with its extremely unwelcome nuclear rhetoric, demonstrate the renewed urgency with which Ukraine’s defensive capabilities need to be upgraded, particularly its air defences, such as that which Germany and the United States are sending. What anti-air assets is the UK sending, and how can that be accelerated and increased?
Moreover, is the UK, like Estonia, preparing to send more winter equipment to assist defensive operations in Ukraine throughout its long, harsh winter? Similarly, what further assistance will the world-leading cold weather combat specialists 45 Commando, based in Arbroath, be tasked with to support Ukraine’s defence forces in their winter combat operations? The Minister attempted to justify the halving of numbers in Estonia by saying that this is not a numbers game, but of course force strength is all about the numbers, and I wonder how he thinks they will be viewing that in Estonia and Moscow. Perhaps he can explain to the House what recent behaviour from Russia has indicated a lessening threat to our NATO allies on the eastern flank, from whom the UK appears to be shamelessly walking away.
Alec Shelbrooke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. On Estonia, we are not talking about the UK walking away from a NATO ally; this is about NATO defence, and NATO operations that vary over time. We work with our allies. I have recently been to these countries, and have seen the exercises taking place and how we play a part in them. We should not focus on just one area and then suggest that we have walked away; we have not.
On the hon. Gentleman’s air defence questions, of course we have Stormer vehicles and Starstreak missiles. We remain committed to delivering what Ukraine needs, when it asks for it, in the light of how, tactically, it can best be used. Operational capabilities are the subject of constant conversation between the Ukrainian and British Governments. On cold weather preparation, we are working exceptionally closely with the Ukrainians to supply them with the equipment and training that they need to get through this winter.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend in his position. He talked about the coalition of countries that have been helping Ukraine to defend itself, which includes the United Kingdom—something of which we should be very proud. Will he confirm that Iran has supplied Mohajer-6 and Shahed-series unmanned aerial vehicles to Russia? What other countries are giving logistical support and weaponry to Russia in its war of choice against the Ukrainian people?
Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. I hope that he will forgive me if I cannot answer that question directly; I will write to him when I have the facts and the answers.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Yesterday, I was talking to Natalia, a Ukrainian teacher who came to my constituency with her seven-year-old twins when the war broke out. She watched in horror over the weekend as bombs rained down on her home city of Kyiv. Her husband and mother are hiding in a bomb shelter. Natalia’s six-month placement under the Homes for Ukraine scheme is at an end, and she is terrified of having to return with her children. What conversations has the Minister had with his colleagues in the Home Office and in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that those who have fled war do not face homelessness as placements come to an end?
Alec Shelbrooke
The hon. Lady raises an important issue, which was mentioned earlier. If she sends me the exact details, I will talk to colleagues in the Home Office.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Events on the edge of Ukraine have become more and more alarming over the last few days. Clearly there is a major role for NATO in trying to bring back a peaceful situation. What information can the Minister, whom I congratulate on his new position, share with us today on talks that we have had with countries such as China and India, which may have useful leverage with Putin?
Alec Shelbrooke
Of course, the response to the situation in Ukraine is Government-wide; it involves the Foreign Office as much as the Ministry of Defence. Responsibility for the relationships that my hon. Friend mentions sits in the Foreign Office, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will have heard his comments.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Do the Government regard the Kerch bridge, which links Russia with Ukrainian territory seized by Russia in 2014, and which was attacked over the weekend, as a legitimate military target? Would the Minister care to contrast that target with the pictures we saw yesterday of a large missile crater in Kyiv, right next to a children’s playground?
Alec Shelbrooke
Of course, Crimea is Ukrainian territory that has been invaded. Any allegations about what happened at the bridge, and any questions about what is behind the attack, are for the Ukrainians to answer, but what happened at Kyiv is simply a war crime. We will make every effort to hunt down the people responsible and to bring them to justice.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is a reassuring presence at the Dispatch Box, and I congratulate him on his recent appointment to his post. Does he agree that all that will deter Putin from the use of nuclear weapons is the thought that: a) they may be ineffective; and b) their use may not result in the west withdrawing its military support for Ukraine, which is what has enabled it to resist successfully so far? Is it not therefore imperative that the west makes it clear that the support will continue? Did he note the remarks of General David Petraeus, who said that western support, in conventional terms, would be redoubled if Putin made any such move?
Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind comments. Indeed, General Petraeus really just outlines the situation overall that NATO is united. It is a defensive force and a nuclear defensive force. I am proud that this country has had a constant at-sea nuclear deterrent for almost 54 years. Statistically, that is deemed to be impossible, but it is something we have achieved and continue to achieve. That acts as a major counterbalance to any leader of a country who may be thinking that nuclear weapons may be something to use. The policy has been shown to work, but we have to calm down and take the air out of the talk about where we are moving with the nuclear rhetoric. It is highly irresponsible of the Kremlin to be upping the rhetoric on nuclear weapons, and I hope that it will draw back from those comments, because the last thing we want to see is any miscalculation and we must make sure that it does everything to take it out. Fundamentally, to answer my right hon. Friend, the NATO alliance is showing just how united it is and that it will stand up to this level of nuclear threat.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) for tabling this urgent question on the enormously important issues that we have been discussing. I must disagree with his suggestion in newspapers today that we reconsider no-fly zones over Ukraine’s cities and critical national infrastructure, and expediting Ukraine’s membership of NATO. Putin is ever weaker at home in Russia, and while this is a failed operation in Ukraine against Ukraine, his popularity could grow significantly in Russia if his attempts to paint this as a NATO-Russia conflict are successful. Can the Minister outline what further steps the Government intend to take to ensure that we and all of our NATO allies are as one in deciding what additional support can be provided to Ukraine?
Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I think his attitude to no-fly zones and NATO membership is based in reality. What we are seeing is the NATO alliance and other allies around the world determined to give the support that we can give to Ukraine. There is no suggestion of backing down on that support, and we have support from outside the NATO allies. It is an international coalition that is helping to train Ukrainian troops, helping to contribute towards the international funds and, indeed, supplying lethal and non-lethal aid, and that alliance is growing stronger.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
During the recess, I had the opportunity to travel to Lviv and Kyiv to see the work of the HALO Trust, which is a charity based in my constituency that focuses on de-mining and attempting to bring areas back to a degree of normality. I was struck by two things in Ukraine. One was the gratitude of the people for the support that this country has given during the conflict, but the other was their efforts to bring about a degree of normality. Does the Minister agree that yesterday’s events were a deliberate attempt by Russia to disrupt the normality that civilians are trying to achieve in these cities and across Ukraine? Does he acknowledge that they are indeed war crimes because they are focused on civilians? Does he also agree with me that, given the resolve that the people of Ukraine have shown to date, they will not succeed?
Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and, yes, I agree with what he has said. Indeed, last Tuesday I visited Ukrainians being trained by our forces in north Yorkshire, and I managed to speak to some who were on day one of their training. What struck me was their determination, no matter their age, to make sure that their country, their sovereign land, their families and their lives will be returned to normal, and they will fight back against this enemy, so I completely agree with what my right hon. Friend said.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I warmly congratulate the Minister. He looks very comfortable at the Dispatch Box, although obviously we do not want him to feel too comfortable there. He is right to say that Putin’s targets yesterday were either deliberate or deliberately indiscriminate, and either way that amounts to a war crime.
May I ask him about Elon Musk, who seems to be playing a double game at the moment, and whose tweet earlier this week was profoundly unhelpful? There are also questions about why there have been outages of the Starlink system, which may have made bigger difficulties for Ukraine. Is there a moment at which we might have to consider sanctioning Elon Musk?
Alec Shelbrooke
Sanctions remain under review at all times, and everything will be taken into consideration in the round. We must always ensure that we are well aware of all the facts rather than just reacting to social media, and then those things can be looked at, including whether any sanctions would be appropriate.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Minister to his post.
Today is Ukraine Day at Cheltenham literature festival, and this morning I had the extraordinary privilege of meeting musicians, poets and writers who have travelled from bombarded cities to come to Cheltenham to perform. Will the Minister join me in thanking the British Council and Cheltenham literature festival for ensuring that our support is not just military, but extends to supporting the culture of that great country?
Alec Shelbrooke
I am delighted to do that. I know my hon. and learned Friend will have been deeply involved with his constituents and the Ukrainians, and that his office will have given them the warmest welcome possible.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Putin’s murderous actions over the weekend are a surefire sign of his desperation, which comes partly from the host of desertions among the Russian military, including from an army, thought to be his pride, that is in retreat. Should we be making the point that every person in Russian uniform who commits a war crime will be sought, not just those in positions of power, and should we be doing everything we can to increase the scale of Russian desertions and undermine Putin’s campaign that way?
Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I completely agree with him. We must not underestimate the scale of the atrocities that are being committed, which are war crimes. Many Members of the House have served in the military, and many have been in the battlefield. They are trained to the laws of the Geneva convention and the laws of the battlefield, as are many people in Russia—certainly the Russian leaders will know those laws. There are consequences to breaking them, and I am proud that we are putting funding, investment and resources into the International Criminal Court to bring those who do so to court. I know that whatever we do will have support across the House. We have to say that it does not matter who someone is, from a squaddie to a general—if they have committed a war crime, we will find them and send them to prison. If they do not believe that, they should remember that we are still sending former SS officers who are almost in their hundreds to prison today.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
The Russian doctrine of escalate to de-escalate almost certainly means that when the rats are cornered—and the rat Putin and his rat-like friends are cornered right now—they will lash out. That is almost without question. I hope the Minister is right in thinking that that will not necessarily be a nuclear lash-out—I think that is unlikely, although we must be ready for it—but there are many other ways he could lash out, including with cyber, chemical and biological weapons, or economic weapons. That might involve covert operations beyond Ukraine, not necessarily in Ukraine itself. What preparations has the Ministry of Defence made? I do not want details, which the Minister will quite rightly not tell us, but I hope the MOD is making careful preparations for all sorts of hybrid warfare that may now occur, including in places other than Ukraine.
Alec Shelbrooke
My hon. Friend raises points that we have spoken about many times in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and he will be aware that chemical, biological, hybrid and cyber warfare are certainly in our military planning and strategy, as indeed are nuclear weapons. Huge amounts of resources go into cyber capability and other such areas. Indeed, part of the memorandum that the former Prime Minister signed with Finland and Sweden was to give support in those areas if they were to be attacked. Overall, I assure my hon. Friend that all those issues are discussed in the round. I could not comment on specific operational capabilities, but I hope I can reassure him that those issues are treated just as seriously.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I went to Kyiv recently with a group of other parliamentarians, and there was no conversation that did not include the need for justice and the need to take all war criminals to court. What discussions has the Minister had about not just freezing assets but seizing and repurposing them to rebuild Ukraine? Has he had discussions about a special tribunal to work alongside the ICC to prosecute acts of aggression and bring more perpetrators to justice?
Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the intent of her questions. I have not had those discussions—obviously, I am early in the role—but I will take those comments back to other Ministers. Overall, that question goes to allies and the international community—it is not just about our approach, because it is not just this country seizing assets and sanctioning, and it is not just this country that will be involved in taking things forward with the ICC. I cannot answer her questions specifically, but I am sure that colleagues have heard her and, if she would like to write to me with more details, I would be happy to respond.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
As Russia loses on the battlefield, it seems to be engaging in retribution through missile attacks on civilian areas. When the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine recently went to Kyiv, the Defence Minister said to us that if refugees are to be encouraged to move back to Ukraine and internally displaced persons are to be encouraged to move back to reoccupied areas, defence against missile attack will become essential. Other countries are looking at that seriously and providing anti-missile support. Will we do so as well?
Alec Shelbrooke
Indeed, and we are already supplying levels of air support. What I said earlier remains relevant: we will continue to work with the Ukrainians to try to deliver what they need to defend their country. We are already supplying air defence systems.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I wish the Minister well as he takes up his new role. He is right to say that we have engaged with and are responding to the requests from Ukraine, but he should know that when we provided Starstreaks and NLAWs, which are made in my constituency, we did so in the face of a request for the imposition of a no-fly zone, and we did not go that far. Even though we are giving surface-to-air missiles and air defence capabilities, Ukraine is, today and yesterday, still asking for more. This morning, the US announced that it would provide new high mobility artillery rocket systems for greater air defence capacity. Will the Minister assure us—if not today on the Floor of the House then in the coming days—that he will engage to ensure that we are responding to the requests that Ukraine is making?
Alec Shelbrooke
We are indeed responding to as many requests as we can from Ukraine. The Government’s policy on no-fly zones remains the same; it has not changed. However, wars and conflicts develop over time and we are seeing large advances. We will also see a change in the weather as winter sets in. All of those things create a different operational demand from what was taking place three months ago. We therefore work closely with our Ukrainian colleagues to try to deliver to them what they need to carry out operations successfully.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that despite President Putin’s heightened rhetoric and threats to use nuclear weapons irresponsibly in Ukraine, that may just be further maskirovka? His track record shows that, in desperation, he is far more likely to resort to chemical weapons. What should NATO’s response be to that?
Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who characterises the actions of President Putin in desperation quite well. The reality is that NATO treats all weapons of mass destruction with the same seriousness and that, operationally, how to respond to such things is discussed constantly. Again, I may have to disappoint my hon. Friend. It would be foolish to outline exactly what the response would be to any weapon of mass destruction because, if President Putin does not know what the consequences would be, he cannot make calculations about using them in the first place.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on his new role. Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), may I ask whether there have been any discussions with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which is responsible for the Homes for Ukraine scheme? Many councils are worried that they will have to deal with homelessness among many of the Ukrainians who are here on that scheme.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. That has not come across my desk at this stage, but we will make sure that the Home Office and DLUHC pick up on it.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his new role. Specifically in response to the war in Ukraine, the Prime Minister made a commitment to update the integrated review, and we now know that Professor John Bew is leading a process from Downing Street that aims to report before Christmas. Given the concern expressed by Members across the House about potential loss of capability and personnel, does the Minister think that it would be prudent not to make any cuts to defence until we know what the outcome of that review is going to be?
Alec Shelbrooke
As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a commitment of the Government to increase spending on defence—to move to 3% by the end of the 2030s, with 2.5% on the way—but we have already increased defence spending by £24 billion in real terms since 2020, and there are no plans to cut the defence budget at this time.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his place. I had a conversation today with the Local Government Association, which informed me that 1,915 Ukrainian families have presented as homeless—a point that my hon. Friends have raised. Will the Minister have urgent conversations with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the relevant Home Office Minister? It really is life or death for many, and housing them will help motivate the troops in Ukraine.
Alec Shelbrooke
My colleagues and I will indeed take up the issues that are being raised on the Floor of the House with the relevant Departments. We will make sure that those conversations are taking place.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Under Putin, Russia has become a terrorist state and a terrorist sponsoring state, whether it is killing people in our own country whom it regards as dissidents, blowing up infrastructure or now, of course, rape and pillage across Ukraine. The latest act of terror, of course, is terror from the skies. Can the Minister give us an assurance that he will work with our Government and with Governments across Europe to ensure that, if no-fly zones are imposed across Ukraine, we will at least provide Ukraine with the necessary defences to ensure that the terror from the skies is dealt with effectively?
Alec Shelbrooke
I can give that assurance to the right hon. Gentleman, because that is indeed what we are doing. As I made clear earlier, the Government’s position on no-fly zones remains unchanged, but we are delivering air defence capability to the Ukrainians. We will continue to deliver on that capability, along with other international allies. As I know the hon. Gentleman appreciates, a mix of equipment is going into Ukraine from various allies, and that has to be in reaction to what the Ukrainians need. I am trying to give him the reassurance that we are doing everything we can with all international partners to deliver what the Ukrainians need on the ground.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Ind)
I congratulate the Minister on his new role. Given the situation in Ukraine and wider volatility, will he at least agree to review the decision to remove UK forces from Estonia, or is he unable to do so because it forms part of wider armed forces cuts by his Government, which are alarming our allies, undermining our security and directly breaking a 2019 Conservative manifesto commitment?
Alec Shelbrooke
As I made clear earlier, we remain committed to the NATO alliance and to providing what resources NATO needs, where and when they are needed. The UK has not withdrawn from Estonia. We are still involved in the Baltic states. We are involved in the joint expeditionary force and the forward presence. It is not fair to say that Britain is walking away from these countries, because we are simply not.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Minister to his place; I think he is doing very well this afternoon. This is probably the most perilous time that I can remember, as a long-standing Member of the House. It is dangerous and we should be very careful. He said that we should lower the rhetoric and show quiet determination. On that note, can we see more presence with the United States and the rest of the NATO allies meeting together and showing quiet assurance firmly against what is happening? This weekend, we saw the shift politically of Russia to the extreme right, with the appointment of a new general in charge. We are in perilous times.
Alec Shelbrooke
I thank the hon. Gentleman—those are kind words from somebody of his experience—and he is absolutely right to speak about the real danger that the world is in, with Russia raising the nuclear rhetoric, which does need to be brought back down. The most important thing in defence and international affairs is patience, calmness and deterrence. Not outlining clearly what our reactions would be is an important part of a deterrent. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it is important that we carry on working with allies, and the Secretary of State for Defence will meet other Defence Ministers shortly. All those issues are about making sure that we are united, have the best strategy and, of course—I hope this reassures the hon. Gentleman —that we try to de-escalate. We can all imagine some of the terrifying consequences, but we hope that we can continue with what have been successful policies for decades now and calm down the rhetoric.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his place. Following the dreadful attacks this week, many Ukrainian families in Britain will understandably be thinking again about when they will return home. Further to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), what additional support is the Government considering for councils and local Ukrainian community centres in the UK, which are doing so much to support families at this very difficult time?
Alec Shelbrooke
As I said, I cannot answer that question from the Dispatch Box, but I will look into it and respond to the hon. Gentleman in writing.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
With reports of nuclear plant employee, Valeriy Martynyuk, being kidnapped by Russian forces and facing potential torture, what support is the UK providing to secure his release?
Alec Shelbrooke
We are getting back into the question of the horrific war crimes that are taking place; we are working as closely as we can with international allies in that area. This is of course a diplomatic—as well as an MOD—issue, but across the alliance, we are determined to pursue the perpetrators of kidnapping and mutilation, which are clearly defined in the Geneva convention as war crimes. We will prosecute, as the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) made clear. Whether it involves someone of the most junior rank or the most senior officer, we will pursue everybody. They should know and fear that, because if they commit these crimes, the international community will pursue them. It is still pursuing Nazi war criminals, bringing them to justice and still imprisoning them. We will not stop.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—it is always good to know that the Shannon name is growing and, obviously, that will help in 18 years’ time whenever they come to vote.
I welcome the Minister to his place, wish him well and thank him for his answers. Has an assessment been done of how effectively food and medical supplies are entering into the communities that are on the outskirts of battle zones? How can we further step up to help Ukrainian citizens who are fighting for freedom and liberty and for their very lives?
Alec Shelbrooke
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the new addition to his family; I know that his grandchild will not have any problem in having someone to give them a bedtime story.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that he asks a technical question, and I will seek to answer him in writing on those specific details.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Nominations for the elections of the Chairs of the Select Committees on Science and Technology and on Foreign Affairs closed at 3.30 pm.
For Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, one nomination was received. A ballot for the position will therefore not be held. I congratulate Greg Clark on his election as Chair of the Science and Technology Committee.
Four candidates have been nominated for Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The ballot will take place from 11 am to 2.30 pm tomorrow in the Aye Lobby.
Mahsa Amini
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on what representations he has made to the Iranian authorities about ongoing protests regarding the death of Mahsa Amini.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Gillian Keegan)
The death of Mahsa Amini in Iran was a shocking reminder of the repression faced by women in Iran. The protests across the country that have followed show us that the Iranian people are not satisfied with the path that their Government have taken.
I commend the bravery of ordinary Iranians seeking to exercise their right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression in the face of appalling police violence. We condemn the Iranian authorities’ crackdown on protesters, journalists and internet freedom: the use of violence in response to the expression of fundamental rights by women or any other members of Iranian society is wholly unjustifiable.
Yesterday, on 10 October, we announced sanctions on senior security and political figures in Iran and the so-called morality police. We have sanctioned the morality police in their entirety, as well as their chief, Mohammed Rostami Cheshmeh Gachi, and the head of the Tehran division, Haj Ahmed Mirzaei. For decades, the morality police have used the threat of detention and violence to control what Iranian women wear and how they behave in public.
The UK is also imposing sanctions on five leading political and security officials in Iran for committing serious human rights violations in suppressing fuel protests in Iran in 2019. The UK maintains sanctions designations against a further 78 individuals and one entity under our Iran human rights sanctions regime. In all, there are more than 200 sanctions designations in place against Iran, including in relation to human rights, nuclear proliferation and terrorism.
Theresa Villiers
These protests show that there are thousands of women in Iran who are not prepared to put up with violent human rights abuses. Will the UK Government stand with those brave women as they call for justice, for freedom and for democracy? Will Ministers meet opposition groups? Will they ban the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps? Will they rule out sanctions relief under the joint comprehensive plan of action process?
Gillian Keegan
As the Foreign Secretary has said, the protests send a clear message that Iranian people are not satisfied with the path that their Government have taken; Iranian leaders must now listen. Of course, we stand by those people: the use of violence in response to the expression of fundamental rights by women or any other members of Iranian society is wholly unjustifiable. We continue to keep everything under review, and the UK has called for a full and transparent investigation into the shocking death of Mahsa Amini.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Like many Members of this House, I have been heartened to see the bravery of the protesters in Iran in the past few weeks, and particularly the women and girls who are spearheading these protests. Iran has a young population—a population which is clamouring for change against an oppressive regime that aims to restrict the liberty and vitality of its people
The Opposition stand in solidarity with those protesting for an end to state violence from the morality police, and in solidarity with the friends and family of Mahsa Amini and all those who have been killed or injured in the protests. These protests are about more than compulsory hijab; they are about ordinary Iranian people’s demands for fundamental freedoms to live their lives as they choose.
We are seeing a flourishing of Iranian civil society, and the UK must support it. While I am pleased that the Government have increased the sanctions on Iran following the Labour party’s calls for them to do so, the UK must do more to support Iranian civil society and independent journalism. BBC Persian Radio, despite being illegal, is accessed by millions of Iranians, but the BBC has announced that it will be closed down.
May I ask the Minister what the Government are doing to support access to independent news in Iran?
If the current regime in Iran ends, the UK Government will need to be ready to work with Iranian partners. The UK, today, should be building links with progressive forces within Iran, supporting all those who speak up for human rights. Will the Minister tell us how the UK intends to build relationships with Iranian civil society? There is a sense that change is coming, and we need to be on the right side of history.
Gillian Keegan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and agree very much with his sentiments. BBC Persian is a legitimate journalistic organisation with editorial independence from the UK Government, and we condemn some of the things that have been happening in relation to the persecution of its employees and ex-employees and members of their families. It is very important that those people continue their work, and we are of course continuing to support the BBC and the BBC World Service in that regard.
We are very concerned about Iran’s human rights record. We raise the issue of human rights at all appropriate levels of the Iranian Government and at all appropriate opportunities—at all levels, at all times—and we will continue to take action with the international community to press Iran to improve its poor record, for instance through the Human Rights Council in Geneva and the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Iran’s record has been of serious concern to the UK for a long time, and we will continue to work with the Iranian Government and others at all levels.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
While the malignant regime in Iran is terrorising women in that country as they seek basic human rights, it has also been shipping drones to Russia to help it to suppress the human rights of people in Ukraine. Given that Iran Air, an instrument of the Iranian state, was used to take those drones to Russia, and given the activities that we have seen in recent weeks on the streets of Iran, is it not time that the Government banned Iran Air from flying to UK airports? An instrument of the Iranian state should not be operating freely in the United Kingdom, given its behaviour, which insults the norms of international law.
Gillian Keegan
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and, indeed, wish him luck with his application to become Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. We cannot comment on future sanctions, including the banning of planes, at this point; I apologise to him for that.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The SNP condemns the Iranian regime’s violent crackdown on protesters, particularly women, in the strongest possible terms. We are deeply concerned by the regime’s vow to crack down further “with no leniency”, which appears to be an ominous indication of further mistreatment.
The bravery of Iranian citizens, especially Iranian women, is inspiring, and we stand in full solidarity with them. We wish to hear the UK Government explicitly recognise the death of Mahsa Amini as femicide. I am also keen to understand how they intend to go forward with international partners, for instance in calling for an independent investigation and raising the mistreatment and killing of protesters at UN level.
We would welcome clarity on how the UK Government are able to support the free flow of information to help to protect protesters—particularly women—and on what plans are in place to support ethnic minorities such as Kurds amid this regime crackdown.
Gillian Keegan
As I mentioned before, the UK has called for a full and transparent investigation of the murder of Mahsa Amini, and we continue to work with our international partners and others to explore all the options for addressing Iran’s human rights violations. As the hon. Lady knows, we never comment on possible future designations or on our future work, but we will continue to work closely with our international partners.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I think that the Government have somehow got themselves into a position of being conflicted over their stance on Iran. This terrible case—the murder of a young woman—calls into question all the actions of Iran, across a wide spectrum. We talk about the morality police, but it is not the morality police but the Iranian Government who have imposed this desperate situation on Iran. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will pursue full criminal actions against the appalling abuses that are taking place, and take this to the United Nations at once?
Gillian Keegan
I understand the request from my right hon. Friend, but at this point we cannot comment on any further actions that we will take. We have clearly condemned the human rights record, we have clearly condemned the murder and we have clearly asked for a full and transparent investigation.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Brave young women are being beaten to death just for wanting to be women and to conserve their human rights. We also have British citizens, Morad Tahbaz and Mehran Raoof, who are still incarcerated in Iran. What are the British Government going to do to release them?
Gillian Keegan
Of course we have ongoing discussions about many different cases, but I am afraid I am not able to comment on those at this point.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
The death of Mahsa Amini is a tragedy, and once again Iran has shown a disregard for women’s rights. Women should be able to make their own decisions and not live in fear. Does my hon. Friend agree that every woman and man around the world should act in solidarity and speak out loudly in support of women in Iran and in other countries, such as Afghanistan, where women are oppressed? What more can we do to support them?
Gillian Keegan
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The UK has joined the international community in clear condemnation of Iran’s response to the protests. My noble Friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon released a statement on 21 September. On 28 September, Lord Ahmad also condemned publicly the shocking police violence against protesters. We summoned Iran’s most senior diplomat in the UK to the FCDO on 3 October. In a statement on 3 October, the Foreign Secretary underlined how the UK was working with our partners to hold Iran to account, and on 5 October he underlined in remarks to the media that the Iranian leadership should take note that the people were unhappy with their direction. Then of course we had the follow-up action with sanctions. So there have been a number of parts of the action, but I am afraid that I cannot comment any further at this stage.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I stand in solidarity with the women and girls who are protesting just to be recognised and respected in Iran. Following the deaths of at least 185, including 19 children, what steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to work with the Iranians and with international partners to secure justice, and also to make sure that it is safe for women and girls in Iran?
Gillian Keegan
In his statement announcing the sanctions on 10 October, the Foreign Secretary said:
“The UK stands with the people of Iran”
and underlined to the Government of Iran that
“we will hold you to account for your repression of women and girls and for the shocking violence you have inflicted on your own people.”
And of course we have called for that full and open and transparent investigation.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend confirm that the UK Government will hold Iran’s Government fully responsible for all their human rights abuses—be they past, present or in the future?
Gillian Keegan
Yes; my hon. Friend makes a good point. Iran’s human rights record has long been of serious concern to the UK, and the FCDO has designated it as one of its human rights priority countries. The continued use of the death penalty, the weak rule of law and the restrictions on freedom of expression, religion and belief are deeply worrying.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I feel sure that the entire House will thank the Minister for her words regarding the brave actions of the indomitable women of Iran, and I was glad to be at the SNP conference at the weekend, where members passed a motion by acclaim condemning the death of Mahsa Amini. Can I ask the Minister whether the Government are therefore planning to make it UK policy to condemn all countries across the middle east that use the pretence of morality to police the bodies of women and compel them to wear certain coverings?
Gillian Keegan
We continue to work with many, including our international partners, on many countries where we see human rights violations, but we do not comment on operational matters or ongoing discussions.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister and the Government on the decisive and meaningful action on sanctions. Sanctions often work best when done on a multilateral basis, so what contacts are she and the Government having with other countries, in order that we can concert the actions on sanctions?
Gillian Keegan
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and the UK has been robust in its response to Iran’s repression of protesters. We have summoned the most senior Iranian diplomat in the UK to express our concern, we have engaged at senior levels in Iran and, yesterday, we issued new sanctions against a number of individuals responsible for human rights violations. We expect other countries, and the EU, to follow suit in the coming weeks.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s sanctions, but the Minister should take a leaf out of the book of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). Instead of treating Ebrahim Raisi as if he is an elected Head of State, we should refer him to the United Nations as a mass murderer. This man is responsible for the death of between 5,000 and 30,000 people he describes as “enemies of God”—his God. Why do we not take appropriate action and make it obvious that we cannot deal with these people? This is not a normal democratically elected regime—they are a bunch of mass murderers—and that is how we should respond to them.
Gillian Keegan
As I outlined to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), we cannot comment on this action or on any future discussions that may take place.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Today is the International Day of the Girl and, of course, everybody in this Chamber stands firm against the violent oppression of women in Iran. We have seen similar brutality in other countries such as Afghanistan, where the Taliban have cracked down on gender-based rights and where 53 Hazara girls were recently killed in a terrorist attack. Many women and girls wish to flee these violent regimes for their own safety. Will the Minister support women in Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere by creating a dedicated UK asylum and resettlement route for women at risk of persecution solely for asserting the rights that we take for granted?
Gillian Keegan
We continue to work closely with like-minded partners to ensure that Iran and other countries are held to account, including via the Human Rights Council in Geneva and the UN General Assembly in New York. Our permanent representative in Geneva, Ambassador Simon Manley, specifically raised the death of Mahsa Amini at the 51st session of the Human Rights Council, and he called on Iran to carry out an independent transparent investigation into her death. We joined 52 other countries in a joint statement to the Human Rights Council urging restraint. Of course, we will continue to work with those partners when we see human rights abuses in other countries.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Last month, at Foreign Office questions, I challenged the then Minister to follow our allies in the United States by proscribing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—the IRGC. In reply, I got the usual Whitehall waffle. The IRGC is crucial to the survival of Iran’s appalling clerical fascist regime. Will the latest outrages now shame the Government into proscribing the IRGC?
Gillian Keegan
We have been clear about our concerns about the IRGC’s continued destabilising activities throughout the region. The UK maintains a range of sanctions that work to constrain the destabilising activities of the IRGC, and the list of proscribed organisations is kept under constant review. We do not routinely comment on whether an organisation is or is not under consideration for proscription.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Many constituents have contacted me, awed by the bravery and determination of the women and girls of Iran and disgusted by the actions of the regime. Indeed, on Saturday there was a large demonstration against the regime in the centre of Newcastle.
Newcastle certainly stands in solidarity with the women of Iran, but the regime seeks to cut off the protestors from each other and from the wider world using their control of communications such as the internet, as well as through fear and intimidation. What steps is the Minister taking with our international allies to shine a light on what is happening in Iran, such as through the International Criminal Court, in the case of the murder of Mahsa Amini, or through an international independent committee of investigation?
Gillian Keegan
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I am sure that many people will have been shocked and horrified at the scenes we are witnessing today following the death of Mahsa Amini. As I said, the UK has called for a full and transparent investigation at this point. We condemn the Iranian authorities, not only for the crackdown on protestors, but, as she points out, in respect of internet freedom and journalistic freedom. Iranians must be able to have peaceful assembly and to protest, and restraint must be exercised. We have also called on the authorities to release those who have been unfairly detained during the process.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Dr Martin Luther King Jr reminded us that none of us are free until we are all free, and the scenes in Iran following the death of Mahsa Amini should remind us that women across the world are not yet free, which is why I welcome the sanctions laid out by the Minister.
The Minister also acknowledged the work and importance of BBC Persian. One thing that will be particularly significant is its expressing the solidarity we have stated here today to the women of Iran and their getting access to the support from across the world. With that in mind, will the Minister take back to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport that point about the importance of BBC Persian and ask it to reconsider the cuts facing the BBC World Service and that service in particular?
Gillian Keegan
I agree with the hon. Lady that BBC Persian and the BBC World Service play a vital role in delivering high-quality, accurate and impartial broadcasting across the globe. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is providing the BBC World Service with more than £94 million annually for the next three years, supporting services in 12 languages and improvements to key services in Arabic, Russian and English—that is in addition to nearly £470 million. Of course the BBC is operationally and editorially independent from the Government, and decisions on how its services are delivered are a matter for the BBC. However, at times such as this all of us see the value of some of these vital services, with the BBC World Service being one of them.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
On this International Day of the Girl, I stand in solidarity with every woman and young girl fighting for their freedom—fighting for the freedom to be heard, fighting for the freedom to live, and fighting for the freedom to have an education and achieve their ambition. We stand in solidarity with the women in Iran. The Minister outlined the sanctions that the Government have taken so far against the Iranian authorities, but how are they going to ensure that the burdens of these sanctions do not fall on ordinary Iranians, who are protesting at the killing of their sisters and girls?
Gillian Keegan
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. Today is the International Day of the Girl, and many of us have been celebrating at events today, which is why this is a shocking reminder of the repression faced by women in Iran. To many young girls, it is a shock that this goes on in the world. All the measures we have taken are there to apply increasing pressure and to say that the Iranian people are speaking and their leaders must now listen. These protests are very clear and their voices must be heard.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I do not know whether other Members share my concern that Opposition Members’ anger about what is happening in Iran is not reflected in the number of Members on the Government Benches—perhaps the lunches with the Prime Minister are overrunning. These protests reveal a thriving opposition among Iranian people, despite the oppression they face. How is the UK building relationships with civil society in Iran? If the regime falls, these people may go on to lead the country.
Gillian Keegan
I understand that there is a lot of activity on delegated legislation at the moment, so the hon. Lady will be delighted to hear that that is all going through. Of course we continue to build our relationships in Iran at many different levels. We are all very concerned by the human rights abuses, and at all appropriate opportunities we will increase and build those relationships to ensure that we can continue to take action, with the international community and with our partners in Iran.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Mahsa Amini was, of course, a Kurd. Many of those joining protests in Glasgow and Edinburgh are of the Kurdish community, and we should celebrate the contribution that that community makes to life on these islands. What discussions has the Minister had with her Home Office counterparts on cases such as family reunion and expediting asylum interviews, given the current situation in Iran?
Gillian Keegan
I have regular conversations with the Home Office and the consular team on many different cases, but it would not be right to discuss those here.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The sheer bravery of all the women and girls who have taken to the streets of Iran to fight for their freedoms is inspirational to all of us in this House. Does the Minister agree that the oppression that they face has nothing to do with so-called religious observance, and everything to do with that age-old problem of men trying to tell women what they can and cannot do?
Gillian Keegan
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It is also fair to say that we should congratulate the men who have joined those protests. We have all observed that and very much welcome it. It is a very important part of the change.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Of course, Mahsa Amini is her legal name, but her family name—her Kurdish name—is Jîna. We have to recognise that, because the Kurdish community in Iran are among the most persecuted groups. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) has already asked about expediting asylum cases, but I will ask the Minister again. There are many people in our communities who are from a Kurdish background and, indeed, who are Iranian human rights activists. What are the Government going to do to expedite these asylum claims, given the barbarity of the regime that we are now witnessing?
Gillian Keegan
Of course, Iran must cease its indiscriminate bombardment of Kurdish towns, which has led to the loss of innocent lives and damaged civilian infrastructure. Those wholly unacceptable attacks are a violation of Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and they demonstrate a repeated pattern of Iranian destabilising activity in the region. We are acutely aware of that and are working to improve the situation.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
May I get the Minister to confirm that there are currently no legal or safe routes for any woman fleeing persecution in Iran to enter this country and claim asylum?
Gillian Keegan
I will reply to the right hon. Lady in writing on what legal and safe routes are available.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
As has been said, it is the UN International Day of the Girl Child, so I think that highlighting the myriad challenges that girls face should have been at the front and centre of the Minister’s response. Those women in Iran are an inspiration to girls across the world. Beyond commenting on sanctions, the Minister has not said much about how the Government are supporting wider civil society. I would be grateful if she could consider what further efforts the UK Government could make to support those incredibly brave girls and women in Iran.
Gillian Keegan
I totally agree with the hon. Lady. There is, of course, much activity and we will continue to work to do all we can and to celebrate the UN International Day of the Girl Child, as I know many of us have done today.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
This is an important debate on the International Day of the Girl Child. Many women constituents have written to me, inspired by the protests in Iran and shocked at the murder of Mahsa Amini. I stand in solidarity with those women protesters. I have a 22-year-old daughter. She is able to wear what she chooses and to protest as she chooses. She would not be in fear of being beaten up and murdered in prison. Has the Minister considered expelling the Iranian diplomats—this cannot be business as usual—and what more would have to happen before she did so?
Gillian Keegan
Of course, as the hon. Lady will have heard in my statement, we have not continued with business as usual. As of yesterday, 10 October, we have announced new sanctions on senior security and political figures in Iran and the so-called morality police. We have sanctioned the morality police in their entirety, including their chiefs. We have taken some actions. We know that there will be other discussions with international partners, and obviously we keep things under review.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I welcome the heartfelt contributions from both sides of the House, praising the bravery of the women and girls protesting in Iran, yet, sadly, on International Day of the Girl, we are seeing women’s rights being eroded in Iran and across the world. Will the Minister give a guarantee that any woman or girl fleeing Iran due to these human rights abuses will not be put on a plane to Rwanda if they seek refuge in this country?
Gillian Keegan
We are there to support the rights of women and girls all across the world, and we will continue to do so through our work with the UN and others.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The irony is that this is a regime, which, since 16 September, has killed at least three further young people in an attempt to prove to its population that it did not kill Mahsa Amini. The reduction of sanctions and the unfreezing of Iranian assets would serve only to strengthen the regime and turbocharge its repression of young people such as Mahsa Amini. What assessment have the Government made of the attempt by President Biden to revive the Iran nuclear deal, which would lead to such a reduction in sanctions?
Gillian Keegan
We have also always been clear that Iran’s nuclear escalation is unacceptable. It is threatening peace and security and undermining the global non-proliferation system. We have kept that matter very separate when we consider our actions in both of these cases. We have always been clear about that.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Zahra Sedigi Hamadani and Elham Choubdar are two LGBTQ rights activists who have been sentenced to death in Iran. Amnesty International says that they were targeted because of their real or perceived sexual orientation and/or gender identity and their social media activities in support of LGBTI communities. Will the Minister commit to raising those cases with the Iranian Government demanding a stay of execution and the immediate release of the activists from detention?
Gillian Keegan
I can confirm that I am aware of those cases and that they are under consideration.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Iranian regime is guilty not just of routine brutality against its own people, but of exporting terror and supporting despotic regimes and terrorist organisations in a whole raft of countries. The people who are protesting in Iran have provided an inspirational example to all of us, but there will be many others who are considering joining those protests but are frightened to do so. It would send a very powerful message if the Minister could come to the Dispatch Box and tell us in response to the question from the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) what she is doing to build those relationships with potential alternative leaders in Iran. Can she tell us more and offer hope to those potential protesters that the UK Government will support those who can show a better future for the people of Iran?
Gillian Keegan
The British Government have a policy of not officially making a decision on that. Their choice is for Iran’s Government to be a matter for the Iranian people. We make sure that we support opposition groups in Iran, but we do not support any one group in particular.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her response. According to a report from the National Council of Resistance of Iran, 400 protesters from largely female groups have been killed and 20,000 arrested during the four weeks of nationwide protests. This House must send the strongest condemnation of those killings and mass arrests. Does the Minister recognise the Iranian people’s right to self-defence and resistance in the face of the deadly crackdown that particularly targets women and their right to establish a democratic republic?
Gillian Keegan
Yes, as I have said many times, we strongly condemn the Iranian authorities’ crackdown on protesters and journalists and on internet freedom as well. They must respect the rights of their people and release those who are unfairly detained, and there must be a free, fair and transparent investigation into the death of Mahsa Amini.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I do not know whether the Minister saw Beth Rigby’s interview this weekend with Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, but it was a gut-wrenching and emotional interview. In it, Nazanin said that what has happened to Mahsa Amini brings back memories of how helpless people are when they are in custody in Iran. She also said that,
“the world cannot turn a blind eye”,
to what is happening in Iran. The Government must act on human rights abuses. The uprising we see in Iran is supported by civil society organisations not just in Iran, but among the Iranian diaspora around the world. What support are the UK Government giving to the Iranian diaspora here and its civil society organisations, as well as those in Iran?
Gillian Keegan
Of course it would bring back memories, and that interview showed us the plight that Nazanin found herself in for many years. The Foreign Office will continue to work both on those individual cases and within societies to ensure that we keep those relationships alive, in order hopefully to defend the human rights of everybody around the world.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for taking the urgent question and responding to a number of Members—particularly, as was mentioned, on the International Day of the Girl.
Sale of Property (Sealed Bids)
Tuesday 11th October 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Sale of Property (Sealed Bids) Bill 2022-23 View all Sale of Property (Sealed Bids) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the sale of property by sealed bids; and for connected purposes.
The role of Government is to ensure that markets work and that deals are fair and as transparent as possible. We make rules to ensure that unfair exploitation does not occur. That is clearly more important in land and property transactions, as they are usually the largest deals that most of us will ever do with our own money.
The purpose of my Bill is therefore to enhance transparency, to reduce costs and opaque behaviour, and to ensure that both buyer and seller are treated fairly by the estate agent. Let me say that, despite the vast number of good agents, there are still some who think that using such opaque techniques to try to extort money is acceptable.
We know that when one buys a property, one does a search and survey before exchanging contracts. That is sensible and prudent. However, when one is asked to submit a best and final offer or a sealed bid, that is done to try to extract more money without any extra information being given. That is not in the interest of any party except the agent, who has made little or no effort to assist in the deal making, as a broker of any other transaction would expect to do.
A sealed bid or private treaty sale will be suggested to a seller when multiple potential buyers are interested in purchasing the same property. Prospective buyers are invited to submit bids for the property through a secret ballot or through an invitation to submit a best and final offer. All bids are then supposed to be considered at once. The owner of the property and the estate agent then decide behind closed doors, in an unclear and opaque process, who should be declared the winner.
Agents are not bound by any legislation setting out appropriate processes for how transparency following bids should be handled, nor is there any later declaration of the price or any other useful information that would help the market. In fact, there are no credible statistics available recording how many sales take place by sealed bid, which demonstrates the overly relaxed nature of the regulations surrounding property buying.
The system is therefore ripe for abuse and detrimental to the confidence of potential buyers. I hope that this Bill can generate real reform and encourage genuine transparency in the property market.
It is inefficient that with such a process of sealed bids the prospective buyer has no idea what their competitors have bid. To be eligible to submit a bid, one must go through the cost of searches and surveys—an expensive procedure. The average homebuyer pays between £1,000 and £1,500 for conveyancing before exchange of contract. There are also other tedious undertakings, such as letters from one’s bank or lengthy pieces on one’s suitability to own the property.
Bidders are required to do so much before even being considered for the property, but what do they get in return? Nothing but confusion, secrecy and unanswered questions. They often find themselves in frustrating and distressing circumstances: either they have not bid enough and are never told what the winner paid, or, if successful, they might be paying well over the asking price, and often far more than that which the agent thought the property was worth.
All that is great news for the seller and the estate agent —right up until the seller becomes a buyer, of course. It leaves an agent who did not know his market with a larger commission, having done less work. It is not surprising that they do not want more transparency and no wonder that this element to the market needs reform.
Once a bid is submitted, a buyer cannot really alter their offer. Estate agents will often tell buyers that their offer is legally binding before exchanging contracts. That may or may not be true, as a “subject to survey” clause is possible. Supporters of sealed bids claim that they speed up the buying process and discourage time wasters. However, in many cases, the seller or the buyer attempts to renegotiate after the sealed bid has been accepted, thereby prolonging the process. According to Quick Move Now, in quarter 4 of 2021, 39% of property sales fell through due to the buyer changing their mind or attempting to renegotiate the offer. When a property sale falls through, people lose not only the house or flat, but any money they have spent on applying for a mortgage, conveyancing or a property survey. Government figures suggest that consumers waste £270 million each year because transactions fall through. Failed transactions make moving house—already considered one of life’s most stressful experiences—more frustrating and less practical.
Research undertaken by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy suggests that consumers are extremely concerned by the weakness of regulation for estate agents. Aggressive tactics that are employed to close a deal quickly include practices such as gazumping. A system of sealed bids only encourages such harmful practices, which waste time, wreck estate agents’ reputations and artificially inflate the housing market.
Often, estate agents use the sealed bids process to pressure inexperienced sellers into accepting the highest bid, with no regard to the circumstances of the buyer, while buyers are pressured into submitting their very highest offer. I must keep saying that estate agents are, by and large, good, honest people. However, the actions of a few can sully the industry. Processes such as sealed bids and best and final offers only add to that unfortunate perception. That is why reform is long overdue.
Sealed bids not only affect the housing market. In Herefordshire, the average price for prime arable land is £10,670 an acre. Agricultural land values in England have reached their highest level since 2016. During that time, the use of sealed bids for farmland has also increased. That is concerning, as the price per acre for farmland is being increased artificially, in turn putting pressure on the price of food.
Due to transport costs, the land next door is always more valuable to a local farmer than land further away, and it is more valuable to them than to someone who lives further away. That means that farmers are much more exploited and much more vulnerable than any other type of property buyer. This has to stop. How can we encourage new and aspiring young farmers to acquire land in such an opaque market environment?
This Parliament has the ability to do far more for prospective home and farm buyers. Now we must find the will. We were elected on a key manifesto commitment to rebalance the housing market towards more home ownership. Home ownership is a fundamental Conservative value. Sealed bids and best-and-final-offer messages do not rebalance the market; they seek to corrupt it. They are not the way to an open, transparent, competitive market; they seek to stifle competition and transparency. They artificially raise prices and hopes, meaning that thousands of pounds are wasted. Through this Bill, I wish to see better regulation of the housing and property market, fairness for all prospective buyers and sellers, and transparency for an industry that has for far too long operated in murky ways. That all starts with an end to the practice of sealed bids and best and final offers.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sir Bill Wiggin, Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger, James Grundy, Dr James Davies, Andrew Rosindell, Cherilyn Mackrory, Mr Mark Francois, Sally-Ann Hart and Sir Edward Leigh present the Bill.
Sir Bill Wiggin accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 157).
Bowel Conditions (Assessment)
Tuesday 11th October 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Bowel Conditions (Assessment) Bill 2022-23 View all Bowel Conditions (Assessment) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Government to publish an assessment of incidences of bowel conditions and diseases, including an assessment of geographical and socioeconomic disparities.
We have a hidden epidemic—a hidden epidemic that this Government are making no attempt to understand, and a hidden epidemic that is devastating the lives of many in Newcastle Central: a hidden epidemic of bowel disease and bowel conditions in the north-east.
Bowel conditions are not a sexy subject; needing the loo rarely is, though it can be a source of humour. I know that children are always fascinated to learn that there was a curtain around your Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, for over 600 years to enable Speakers to relieve themselves during long sessions. Fortunately, we have moved on since then, but there is still a curtain around bowel conditions. That is why we are all so grateful for the much missed and tireless “Bowel Babe”, Dame Deborah James, who did so much to tackle the stigma surrounding the diagnosis and care of people with bowel diseases.
Bowel ill health has a significant impact on my constituents, leading to lives lost and stoma surgery, which requires ongoing care and support. Like Members across the House, my primary concern is the wellbeing of my constituents. That is why I, like so many of us, attended the “Stomas in Parliament” event in July, to better understand the impact of stomas on constituents’ lives. It is also why in July, I visited Richard Brady, consultant colorectal surgeon at Newcastle Clinical Research Facility, to see how they are trialling innovative surgical products from the company Coloplast that reduce the burden of leakage on stoma wearers. It was fascinating to hear and see the reality of stoma wearing and changing, but I also learnt of the difficulties confronting so many patients in Newcastle and the north-east.
One person living with a colostomy told me that he felt invisible to Government. One who has had inflammatory bowel disease since she was 16 and, later, ulcerative colitis has “lost count” of the number of medications and surgeries she has had. Another living with stage 3 bowel cancer explained the frustration and embarrassment they felt in public spaces when a toilet was not available in shops. One patient said that, during the first few months following her ileostomy, her stoma nurse felt like her only friend. Another said that she felt as though the world was crashing down when she was diagnosed with colorectal cancer after experiencing no symptoms, and one person living with a stoma told me that his condition made him fear leaving the house, thus isolating him from the people he loved and the things he loved to do. The lived experiences of those with bowel disease can be very distressing.
Bowel disease comes in many forms. There is colon cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn’s disease, diverticulitis, gastroenteritis, diverticular disease, colitis, ileus and many more. All these conditions impact patients differently, and each presents its own challenges.
The north-east appears uniquely vulnerable to bowel ill health. Scientists believe that that is because we have the perfect storm of contributory factors. According to The BMJ, the north-east has the highest rate of ulcerative colitis in the country, and the UK as a whole has the highest rate in Europe. The north-east also has the highest rates of colorectal cancer in the UK, with 646 patients diagnosed per 100,000 people—14% higher than London. The UK also has one of the lowest survival rates of colorectal cancer in high-income countries.
Diverticulitis, in which tiny bulges in the colon wall become inflamed, leading to severe pain, is another condition linked with many social factors that are more prevalent in the north-east. One is smoking; 13% of people in the north-east smoke, which is the highest rate in England. Another is obesity. In the north-east, 34% of adults are obese, which is the joint highest rate in England, and 29% of year 6 children are obese—the second highest rate in England.
Another critical factor is economic deprivation, to which the north-east is particularly vulnerable following 12 years of Conservative economic mismanagement and neglect. Two in five children in the north-east live in poverty—the highest rate of any UK region. According to a recent Survation poll, a third of people in the north-east are worried that they might have to use a food bank—the highest proportion in the country. Access to primary care is also a factor, and can be linked to poverty: when a person works two jobs to make ends meet, it is harder to get to the doctor’s. Other factors include Celtic heritage, lack of exposure to sunlight, and a diet high in animal fat. The consequence of all these factors combined is that the north-east suffers from higher rates of bowel ill health. Despite that, it has lower rates of screening uptake. That means more advanced cases, and higher rates of stomas that result in ongoing care demands and have a significant impact on people’s quality of life.
As I have said, Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust is a centre for innovative bowel disease treatment, and patients cross the Pennines for its support, but the Government need to do much more to highlight and address the unacceptable regional disparities in bowel illness. In answer to my parliamentary questions, the Department of Health and Social Care told me that it makes no assessment of regional disparities in the prevalence of bowel disease. The Bill would make patients living with these conditions visible in the NHS and in Government datasets, which would aid treatment and help to identify areas with a higher prevalence of a condition.
The Government also told me that there were just under 2,000 newly formed stomas in 2021, but analysis of NHS patient activity data suggests that the true number is around eight times higher, at between 160,000 and 200,000. The Government simply do not know what is happening. We need legislation to better understand, identify, prevent and address bowel conditions, so that we can better target investment, and focus resources on reducing inequity across the UK. My Bowel Conditions (Assessment) Bill would be the first step in addressing the issue, not only for my constituents, but for the country.
The Bill would provide for the statutory collection and reporting of statistics by region and by socioeconomic indices. This data would be invaluable to all those involved in the treatment of bowel conditions. More importantly, it would help in supporting existing patients, and contribute towards prevention and diagnosis of future patients. Better understanding will save lives.
The Bill would force the Government to assess, and ultimately address, the inequalities that have grown over 12 years of Tory neglect. Twelve years of Government mismanagement have resulted in record waiting lists for care, and chronic staff shortages. Cancer waiting times worsened in every one of those years prior to the pandemic, and according to Bowel Cancer UK, England is also poorer at diagnosing cancers at an early, more treatable stage than the best performing countries. That is why the next Labour Government will undertake one of the biggest expansions of the NHS workforce, and will produce a long-term workforce plan for the NHS.
People living with bowel conditions deserve to live in dignity. For this to happen, we need the stories and voices of patients to be heard by the Government. The Bill will make that patient living with a stoma who said that he felt invisible visible to the NHS, to integrated care boards, to the Department of Health and Social Care, and to the Government. I hope that the Bill progresses today, so that we can finally address this hidden epidemic, which affects and cuts short the life of so many in the north-east.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Chi Onwurah, Liz Twist, Mary Kelly Foy, Catherine McKinnell, Kate Osborne, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck, Ian Lavery, Ian Mearns and Grahame Morris present the Bill.
Chi Onwurah accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 158).
Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Bill (Allocation of Time)
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Bill:
Timetable
(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill;
(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:
(a) any Question already proposed from the chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;
(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (11)(a) of this Order.
(5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(d) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
Other proceedings
(8) Provision may be made for the taking and bringing to a conclusion of any other proceedings on the Bill.
Miscellaneous
(9) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
(10) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(11) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(12) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(13) (a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply in respect of any such debate.
(14) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(15) (a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at a time falling after the commencement of proceedings on this Order or on the Bill on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours.—(Chris Philp.)
Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Bill
Tuesday 11th October 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Act 2022 View all Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 11 October 2022 - (11 Oct 2022)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Chris Philp)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Let me start by reiterating that the central and defining mission of this Government is growth. This Government are completely and unashamedly committed to achieving that objective—economic growth. However, we are not committed to it simply for its own sake or for some abstract reason; we are committed to growth because of the impact it will have in so many ways on people’s lives.
Growth brings higher wages, bringing prosperity to our constituents. Economic growth will create new and better-paid jobs and, critically, economic growth will create a sustainable tax base that will fund public services into the future. Without strong economic growth, we cannot have well-funded health services, education and police. It is quite clear that, with economic growth, everyone benefits—not in some trickle-down sense, but because it will elevate salaries for everybody, create jobs the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, and generate the tax income that will fund our public services.
Crucially, this growth agenda set out by the Chancellor two or three weeks ago will pursue growth in a way that is fiscally responsible, and on 31 October—in just under three weeks’ time—the Chancellor will set out in detail how that will take place, buttressed by a full scoring and forecast produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility.
The growth plan announced by the Chancellor just a fortnight ago is crafted to achieve 2.5% growth year on year. It aims to do so in a host of different ways. First, it will do so through lower taxation, because with lower taxation we incentivise companies to invest, we incentivise people to get into work, and we encourage companies and high-potential individuals to choose to locate in the United Kingdom as opposed to somewhere else. Many successful companies, and indeed successful people, have a choice about where they locate, where they do business and where they work, and by having internationally competitive rates of personal and corporate taxation we are encouraging them to make the choice to locate in the United Kingdom, all of which improves and increases economic growth.
There is of course more to the growth plan than just that. We are working on infrastructure—whether road, rail or energy infrastructure—and speeding up its development, as well as supporting skilled employment, removing barriers to investment, getting the housing market moving and removing obstacles, such as the recent IR35 changes that have caused difficulties for many self-employed people and contractors. Critically, the growth plan has moved at pace to help both households and businesses with the terrible crisis posed by Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and its consequences for energy bills.
Just a few weeks ago, households and businesses in the United Kingdom were faced with the realistic prospect of domestic energy bills going up to £5,000, £6,000 or even £7,000 per year. The energy price guarantee takes that possibility off the table, not just for six months but for two years, ensuring that the average household will pay no more than £2,500.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Does the Minister accept that, regardless of what the Government have done, my constituents can expect to pay double for their energy bills this year compared with what they paid last year?
Chris Philp
The energy price guarantee ensures that the average household pays no more than £2,500 a year. The hon. Gentleman is correct that that is higher than average bills this time last year, and that is why the comprehensive package was put in place earlier this year. It amounts to a further £37 billion, and ensures that households on the lower one third of incomes receive £1,200 per year, which pretty much fills the gap that he described. The energy price guarantee, combined with that £37 billion intervention, is the kind of thing we can do as a Union and as a United Kingdom. It is the kind of thing we can do together that would be so much harder apart, and that is one of the benefits of our precious Union. There is a lot more in the growth plan, but I will not labour the point because we are here to talk about the health and social care levy.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Growth in Wales has for a long time—for many decades before and after devolution—been based partly on the idea of attracting high-worth individuals to invest in Wales. The mixed result of that gives me pause for thought as to that strategy. Does it do the same for the Minister?
Chris Philp
We will deliver growth if we encourage people across the whole income spectrum—people doing jobs on lower incomes, those on higher incomes, businesses big and small alike. We need to encourage the entire economy, which is why tax cuts in the growth plan are broadly based, like the tax cut we are debating now. We need to encourage them all, which includes companies and people who are internationally mobile. I used to be technology Minister, and most technology businesses have a choice about where they locate. They are very internationally mobile. They could go to New York, San Francisco, Singapore—they could go anywhere in the world. We need to ensure that every part of the United Kingdom is attractive to such businesses, and the growth plan intends to create those conditions that make us attractive as a nation.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister seems to have mentioned everything except the need for a healthy workforce. Local authorities spend £1.2 billion every year on social care needs caused by smoking, and that will get more expensive if the Government fail to address the issue of tobacco. This morning the Health and Social Care Secretary hinted that she will do less, not more, to tackle the dangers of smoking. Will the Minister join me and press her to bring forward the tobacco control plan, to help protect the health of the nation and save health and social care costs?
Chris Philp
I do not think I should trespass into the realm of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Deputy Prime Minister. She will make her own views and policy on that issue without intervention from me. We are ensuring that the NHS is well funded so that it can provide the treatment our constituents need. Our commitment to NHS funding is undiminished.
Let me turn to the Bill, which repeals the health and social care levy. Members will recall that the health and social care levy was originally announced in September last year, and the Health and Social Care Levy Act 2021 received Royal Assent on 20 October last year. The levy had two phases: first, a temporary 1.25% increase for employers and employees in the current tax year; and then from April 2023 a formal surcharge of 1.25%, which would have affected not just those of working age but also those of state pension age. The Bill repeals that Act with elegant simplicity. Clause 1 states simply:
“The Health and Social Care Levy Act 2021 is repealed.”
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
This is my first opportunity to congratulate the Chief Secretary on his appointment. What he said on the energy support for my constituents and all our constituents is very important, and I very much welcome that. However, on repealing the levy, he is of course aware that one of the most important things that it was going to fund was the welcome cap on care costs introduced by the Government, which had been promised by successive Governments with many a White Paper and many a Green Paper. How will we now pay for that?
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. We are long-standing colleagues, and I look forward to working with him for many years to come. To be clear, the funding that was to be provided via the levy for both health and social care, which in the case of social care amounted to £5.4 billion over the three-year spending review period, is completely unaltered. There is no change to that funding at all.
My hon. Friend asked about funding for social care. The funding envelope for all public services will be set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on 31 October via his medium-term fiscal plan. We will ensure that we are responsible custodians of the public finances by sticking to the spending plan set out in spending review 2021. We will be disciplined about doing that. We will ensure that we generally exercise spending restraint, mindful of the fact that we cannot have public spending forever increasing at faster and faster rates. We will be disciplined about how we manage the public finances.
I also point to economic growth. If, or rather when, we are successful in delivering the growth plan’s mission to elevate trend growth from 1.5% to 2.5%, with an extra 1% per annum over a consistent period of time—for example, five years—by the fifth year that additional growth will deliver about £47 billion of extra tax revenue, as set out in the table on page 27 of the Blue Book that accompanied the growth plan. I hope that gives my hon. Friend a hint about our thinking, but really the medium-term financial plan on 31 October will provide the most complete answer.
Hywel Williams
The Chief Secretary is being generous with his time. I should say that the table on page 27 shows a target, rather than anything that will stand closer examination. However, in respect of the decision to increase national insurance to pay for social policy—in England, I might add—the Welsh Government had no say whatsoever, just as they had no say in the now paused policy of scrapping the additional rate of income tax. Does the Minister not think that the Welsh Government, who are, after all, responsible for social care in Wales, warrant consultation on a fundamental matter such as this?
Chris Philp
I do not think that the Government in Wales complained too loudly when they were provided with extra money to fund social care in Wales. On the hon. Member’s point about page 27 of the growth plan, he is right that it is a target, but it is a target accompanied by a plan to deliver it. There is a clear path to how we will achieve the increase in growth that I referred to.
Let me return to the repeal of the health and social care levy. To be clear, the Bill will repeal the legislation from last year, reversing the temporary increase in national insurance contributions from 6 November—in just a few weeks’ time. Additionally, it will ensure that no new levy comes into force in April 2023. Members will understand that it takes a little time for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and businesses to prepare their systems for such tax changes. That is why we chose 6 November as the date of implementation, but that will ensure that the extra money gets into people’s pockets as quickly as possible.
That brings me to the rationale for why we are repealing the levy. First, it is so that people can keep more of their own money, particularly at this time when that is so critical with the cost of living. In Treasury questions earlier today, many Members on both sides of the House referred to the cost of living challenges, most of which follow from Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. By reducing this tax and urgently alleviating the tax burden on our constituents, that will immediately assist with cost of living pressures. I am not saying that it will solve them, but it will certainly assist with them.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new role.
I acknowledge the narrative of growth and the therapeutic effect of the combination of supply-side reforms and tax cuts to generate growth. My concern is the interval between his assertions today and the medium-term fiscal strategy that will be announced on 31 October, and the markets’ confidence in that interval. Today we see a welcome announcement by the International Monetary Fund on the enhancement to growth, but we also see reference to the enduring effect of inflation. We have also seen in recent weeks the effect of interest rate changes on the cost of living challenges for families up and down this country. Will my right hon. Friend please take account of the interaction of those two conflicting realities?
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I pay tribute to him for his extraordinary service as City Minister. I think I am right in saying that he is the longest-serving City Minister ever—I think it was four years—and, I should say, he is the best to date. I pay tribute to him for his long and distinguished service.
My hon. Friend raised a couple of points. One was the interaction between the announcements and the OBR’s scoring. There was a desire to get the growth plan done quickly and with a sense of urgency, and the energy price guarantee was something we wanted to do straight away. Families were genuinely worried. They had huge anxiety about the prospect of facing £6,000 or £7,000 bills this winter. We wanted to take that off the table immediately. We also wanted to alleviate the tax burden that we are discussing today as quickly as we could. By doing this so quickly, assuming the Bill passes, on 6 November—in just a few weeks’ time—our constituents will be alleviated of this burden at this time of cost of living challenges.
As companies make decisions about where to invest—in the UK or elsewhere—they can do so in the knowledge that corporation tax in the UK will remain low. That is why we acted so quickly. I do, however, recognise my hon. Friend’s point about the need for market confidence, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced just yesterday that the medium-term fiscal plan would be brought forward from 23 November to 31 October. He recognised exactly the point that my hon. Friend made and similar points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), the Chair of the Treasury Committee.
The point about inflation came up repeatedly in Treasury questions earlier. We should be clear that we are in a global interest rate up cycle. In, for example, the United States of America, base rates set by the Federal Reserve have increased by three percentage points this year—from 0.25% in January to 3.25% now. The equivalent interest rate set by the Bank of England, the base rate, has also increased, but only by two percentage points from 0.25% to 2.25%. So we have seen higher base rate increases in the USA in the year to date than we have here. As a consequence, the base rate in the USA is a full percentage point higher than in the United Kingdom, and we should keep that international context firmly in mind.
As I explained, we are repealing the levy so that people can keep more of their own money and so that we can help with the cost of living challenges at this time as a matter of urgency on 6 November and not delay any longer. I and the Chancellor think it is also important to boost incentives to work. We want to make sure that working is as attractive as possible and, by lowering the taxes on work, I believe that we will do that.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I add my voice to those who have welcomed my right hon. Friend to his role. I think he will do a good job.
Here is what is worrying me. Yes, we want work to pay, but we also want work to be available. There are lots of vacancies in the labour market, but there are also labour shortages. Lots of people, as we have heard today, are economically inactive, many of them because they are on the NHS waiting list. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will know, the first part of the levy was to fund the catch-up programme. I was in my local hospital on Friday to see how we are getting on with the catch-up programme. We are still waiting for news of our elective hub at the Royal Hampshire County Hospital in Winchester, which would help with the catch-up and get people back into the workforce. Is that affected by my voting for this repeal today?
Chris Philp
I can categorically assure my hon. Friend that that is not affected. The £8 billion that was allocated over the spending review period to catch up on the elective backlog is completely unchanged by this measure, and the funding for social care—£5.4 billion over three years—is also unaffected. The rest of the money, because that is not all of it, will continue to be available to the Department of Health and Social Care to spend on the NHS and social care precisely as was intended. As a result of repealing the Health and Social Care Levy Act 2021, not a single penny less will go to social care or the NHS, or in particular the elective programme that he refers to. I cannot answer on Winchester hospital, but I am sure that the Health Secretary would be delighted to discuss that with him.
My hon. Friend also made a good point about vacancies. We have a lot of vacancies in the economy. Earlier this year, I believe for the first time in history, there were more vacancies than there were people in unemployment. If we are keen to tackle poverty and help people into a more prosperous future, getting them off benefits and into work is clearly the answer.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
To follow on from the former Health Minister, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), if it is true that the levy was essentially not needed for the social care reforms and the catch-up, and that everything is still staying, will the Minister tell us what advice he has had from the DHSC about what it will not do now that, presumably, there is less money for the other things that it was going to do?
Chris Philp
The funding provided by the Treasury to the DHSC is completely unchanged as a result of the reversal of the NIC increase. That applies both to the money that was essentially hypothecated to the DHSC and its other budget. It is completely unaffected, so we are not moving money from one part of the health service budget to backfill something else. The complete health service budget is unchanged. There is not a penny less for the health service in any way as a result of the changes, but we are changing the way we fund the expenditure. Instead of funding it from the health and social care levy, it will be funded differently, partly by general taxation and other means, which will be set out in the medium-term fiscal plan. However, not a single penny less will go to the health service as a result of this change.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Philp
I am spoilt for choice; I will start with my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge).
James Cartlidge
I am lucky to have a second intervention already. I know that as a former businessman, the Minister cares passionately about growth, and I respect that. However, as a businessman, he must also know that the single most important factor for business is confidence and stability. When we speak to businesses at the moment, we hear that they are worried about the lack of stability. They want certainty and confidence. He needs to explain the basic question about the £17 billion of revenue from the levy to fund social care and the NHS. If the levy is going, surely that implies that borrowing fills the gap or some other change fiscally. Is it the case that that will be confirmed on the 31st?
Chris Philp
Yes, it is. My hon. Friend is asking entirely reasonable questions, but we have to look at this issue in the round across the entirety of public expenditure. The Chancellor will set that out in detail on 31 October to the House, accompanied by the OBR scoring.
Alex Cunningham
The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) has made this point: if £17 billion is being removed from the Exchequer, how can we have all that extra spending on the NHS and on social care if there is no additional taxation?
Chris Philp
As I pointed out, we will set that out on the 31st. The Chancellor has a number of measures in mind to make sure, over the medium term, that this is fully funded, and critically, so that we can do this and the other things in the growth plan—this is obviously only one measure among many—to make sure that we get debt falling as a proportion of GDP. Hon. Members are asking entirely reasonable questions, but the point of the medium-term fiscal plan, and the details that will accompany it on 31 October, is to answer precisely those questions.
Let me set out the benefits that the move will confer on employees earning more than £12,570 and self-employed people earning more than £11,909. The average saving for people in work who are earning more than those thresholds will be approximately £330 next year. Combined with the increase in the threshold that took effect last July, the saving for the average worker earning above those thresholds will be £500 next year. That will clearly be welcome at a time of economic challenge. Moreover, almost a million businesses—920,000—will get an average tax cut of just a shade under £10,000 next year: £9,600, to be precise. That will be very welcome indeed.
It is worth being clear that the increase in the threshold that was put through a few months ago means that people on lower incomes pay very little in national insurance or income tax these days. I am sure that Members of this House who want to see the burden of taxation made as light as possible, particularly for those with lower incomes, will strongly welcome the increase in the threshold. It follows the very substantial increases in the income tax threshold over the past 12 years, from about £6,500 back in 2010 to £12,500 today, which have lifted people on the lowest incomes out of national insurance and out of income tax entirely.
I have already made the point that the reversal of the levy is part of a much wider plan. Over the coming days and weeks, my colleagues the Secretaries of State for various Departments will announce further supply-side measures to stimulate growth in our economy, including by making the planning system faster, making sure that business regulations are not unduly onerous, improving childcare, addressing questions concerned with immigration and agricultural productivity, and improving digital infrastructure. As I have said, we will do so in a way that makes sure that debt over GDP falls over the medium term.
Chris Philp
I was about to finish, but as the hon. Member is an old friend, I will give way one last time.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful; I enjoyed my time dealing with justice issues opposite the right hon. Member. Twelve years ago, one of his predecessors—a Lib Dem, in fact—cancelled the new hospital for Stockton. The need for one is far greater than ever and the Chief Secretary seems very capable of splashing the cash, so will he finally approve funding for a new hospital in Stockton?
Chris Philp
The Government have a commitment, which we stand by, to build I think 40 new hospitals in the coming years. Of course, the details of that programme are in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. I am sure she would be happy to discuss a hospital for Stockton with the hon. Member, who is an eloquent advocate for his home town, as ever.
Making sure that we act in a fiscally responsible way is a responsibility that falls partly on me as Chief Secretary. I have already said that we intend to stick to the limits set out a year ago in the comprehensive spending review—a three-year spending review, of which we are in the first year. We will exercise restraint in public expenditure, because we simply cannot have a state that continues to consume ever larger proportions of national income. Of course we need to make sure that public services are properly funded, but we need to do so in a way that does not impose excessively onerous burdens on taxpayers—our constituents who work hard day in, day out to earn a living and pay their taxes.
Growing our economy is our central and defining mission. The United Kingdom needs a Government who are wholeheartedly and unequivocally committed to economic growth. We stand committed to growth in a way that the anti-growth coalition arrayed against us does not. This Government have a very clear growth plan. The reversal of the levy and of the temporary national insurance increase is an important part of that growth plan, which is at the heart of this Government’s mission. I commend the Bill to the House.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Just over a year ago, Opposition Members stood in this Chamber urging the Government to drop their plans to hike national insurance contributions and to introduce a new levy on working people and their jobs. It was not just my Opposition colleagues and me making the case against this tax rise; the Government were warned by so many others, from the Federation of Small Businesses to the British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI and the TUC. Ministers were warned from all sides of the harm that their approach would cause. The Government were warned by their own Back Benchers. Ministers at the time even warned themselves. The tax information impact note on the tax rise was signed off by the Minister who took the original legislation through Parliament, and that note said:
“There may be an impact on family formation, stability or breakdown as individuals, who are currently just about managing financially, will see their disposable income reduce.”
In relation to businesses, it said:
“Behavioural effects are likely to be large, and these will include...business decisions around wage bills and recruitment.”
Yet the Government pressed ahead with the tax rise, supported in the Lobby by the current Prime Minister and the Chancellor. The Government kept supporting it until the then Foreign Secretary became Prime Minister and decided to perform a U-turn.
We welcome this U-turn, as it puts an end to a tax rise that we said was wrong from the very start. It is, of course, not the only U-turn that we have seen under this Prime Minister. Just last week the Government U-turned on their damaging and misguided plan to cut the top rate of tax for the very highest paid, so our current message to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor is to keep on U-turning.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify something? Would he keep the social care cap and the spending on the backlog, and if so, given that he supports repeal, how would he fund that?
James Murray
The truth is that we are having this debate as part of a wider Government economic strategy that has caused economic chaos, and contains no plan for growth and no plan to fund public services. Even when we were discussing the original Bill last year, there was no plan for social care: there was no guarantee that a penny of the money would go into social care. So I will not take lectures from the hon. Gentleman.
James Murray
I am going to make some progress. I may let the hon. Gentleman intervene again in a few moments.
As I was saying, right now our message to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor is to keep on U-turning. They need to U-turn on their whole disastrous approach to the economy, which the Chancellor set out just over two weeks ago. That Budget—in all but name—was the most destructive, unfair and irresponsible fiscal announcement in a generation.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor should now U-turn on their decision to lift the cap on bankers’ bonuses. They should U-turn on their refusal to ask oil and gas giants to put some of their eye-watering excess profits towards helping keep to people’s energy bills down. They need to U-turn on their discredited, dangerous trickle-down approach to the economy. It is time for them to reverse their disastrous kamikaze Budget, which has unleashed an economic crisis that they made in Downing Street, and which working people are paying for through higher mortgages and prices.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend says, rightly, that we support this particular U-turn, but is he not as perplexed as I am about where all this money will actually come from—or does he know that, rather than having a magic money tree, the Tories have a full orchard?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Conservatives’ sums simply do not add up. However, you do not have to take our word for it, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just look at the markets: they have issued their own judgment on the Conservatives’ so-called economic plan, and they are not convinced.
As we consider the repeal of the Health and Social Care Levy Act, it is important to remember how the Government’s decision to bring in this national insurance hike came to pass in the first place. Over the last 12 years under the Conservatives, we have been stuck in what the Chancellor himself rightly described last month as a “vicious cycle of stagnation”. With tax revenues stagnating under low growth, the Government made it clear that they felt the only way to raise more funds was to raise taxes on working people.
On Second Reading of the legislation that is being repealed today, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury tried to defend the Government’s approach, saying that this new charge would
“enable the Government to provide additional funding to the NHS so that it can recover from the pandemic.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 843.]
We argued at the time that if the Government felt that they had to raise taxes, those with the broadest shoulders should contribute more, but the Government refused. They pushed ahead with this tax rise on working people and their jobs, and they refused throughout the debate on the original legislation to ask those with the broadest shoulders to take more of the burden. Now, as they repeal the legislation for the national insurance increase, they have abandoned any attempt at fiscal responsibility altogether, with an economic approach that has borrowing at its heart.
In a letter sent to the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on 22 September, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury wrote:
“The additional funding used to replace the expected revenue from the Levy will come from general taxation and may require further borrowing in the short-term.”
Labour takes a different approach. Our pledges are fully and fairly funded. As the shadow Chancellor has set out, we would boost NHS investment by ending the outrageous non-dom tax loophole exploited by the super-rich. We will use money from what is saved by scrapping that arcane practice to double the number of district nurses qualifying every year, to train more than 5,000 health visitors, to create an additional 10,000 nursing and midwife placements every year and to double the number of medical students so that our NHS has the doctors it needs.
Chris Philp
I think I heard the shadow Chancellor on television a week or so ago saying that her proposals on non-doms would raise about £2 billion. The cost of this measure is about £15 billion, so where is the other £13 billion going to come from?
James Murray
The Minister must not have been listening carefully enough to the shadow Chancellor setting out Labour’s plans, because we have set out how we would scrap the non-dom status, which it is completely irresponsible to keep in the current context, and to use some of that money to set out our plans for investment in the NHS. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that the Government make promises and use throwaway comments about how they might fund this with general taxation or through extra borrowing, whereas when we set out our pledges, we set out exactly what we will pay for. They are fully costed, fully funded and paid for through fairer taxation.
James Murray
No, I am going to make some progress.
We have set out that we will not borrow for day-to-day spending and that we will not ask working people who are already struggling to foot the bill. That is what we mean when we say we are the party of economic responsibility and the party of social justice. The Conservatives have shown themselves to be the party of a failed approach to the economy. After six so-called growth plans from the Government that have all failed, the drunken gamblers of Downing Street have rolled the dice one last time, putting their faith in the ideological mantra that if they just slash taxes and regulation, they will unleash business investment and growth. They believe that wealth is created only by a few at the top, when the truth is that it comes from the bottom up and from the middle out.
The trickle-down economics of the Prime Minister and her Chancellor are wrong. Their approach will not work and it is not fair. It will hit working people’s spending power, undermining prospects for growth, and it ignores the need for the Government to be a partner for business to grow—something that is more important than ever with the turbulent, changing, challenging outlook that we face. That is why the next Labour Government would do things differently. We would bring together businesses and trade unions through a national economic council. We would support businesses to grow, through our modern industrial strategy, and we would use a national wealth fund to invest in the new green industries of the future. That is our approach to the British economy: pro-business, pro-worker, pro-growth.
The Government are making the wrong calls again and again. They were wrong last year to introduce the national insurance rise on working people, just as they were wrong last month when they tried to cut tax for some of the highest paid in society and to hide the OBR report on their plans. We welcome the Government finally admitting that they were wrong to raise national insurance on working people and businesses in the middle of a cost of living crisis, but their wider economic approach is one that is characterised by ballooning borrowing and a discredited trickle-down approach to economic growth.
The Prime Minister and her Chancellor are gambling with the livelihoods and wellbeing of people across the UK. Their gamble is dramatically worsening the cost of living crisis, with higher costs and mortgage payments for households across the country. It is shredding any reputation for economic competence the Conservatives might once have claimed to have, and it will fail to deliver the growth we need after 12 years of stagnation.
Throughout the cost of living crisis, Labour has forced the Conservatives to U-turn time and again. By repealing the national insurance rise and levy and by halting their plans to cut the top rate of tax for the very highest paid, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have shown that they have it within themselves to make a U-turn. Our message to them is clear: do not stop there. The Government must U-turn on their whole economic approach and reverse their disastrous kamikaze Budget. Our message to the British people is also clear: this is a Tory crisis that has been made in Downing Street and is being paid for by working people. Only Labour will fix the damage that the Tories are doing. Only Labour will deliver economic responsibility and social justice. Only Labour will be a Government that are on your side.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Could people who intend to speak in the debate please stand, because I know that at least one is not on the list? Thank you.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is fair to say that it is a bit of a novelty for me to be called so early, and without a time limit, in a debate. I am very grateful, not least because how we pay for healthcare is one of the single most important subjects in British politics. That is essentially what we are debating today, and I feel strongly on this subject. The core principle must be one that I have always held as a Conservative, which is that we are fiscally responsible. As with the environment, we must aim to leave things in a better condition for future generations and, with the public finances, have in mind at all times the impact on those yet to be born—on our grandchildren—so that we are fiscally responsible. That is the fundamental belief of my party, in my view.
With that in mind, there is a lot of excitement about what the OBR will say on Hallowe’en, but it has already pronounced on the matter of health expenditure. In July it published “Fiscal risks and sustainability”, a fascinating bedtime read. The crucial thing is what it says about the OBR’s estimate for the future cost of healthcare in this country. It predicts that the current spend on health and adult social care will go from around 10.3% of GDP to 17.5% of GDP in 50 years’ time. That is an extraordinary increase—almost double—and it would take up so much more of our wealth and public expenditure. The OBR’s track record is very accurate on estimating health spend. It is based on a lot of cautious variables that are obviously difficult to predict, but essentially this is, if you like, cutting the mustard in telling us the future cost we have to face up to.
To put this in context, the OBR estimates that the headline estimate for public debt that we will be passing to our grandchildren will be 100% of GDP in 30 years’ time and that in 50 years’ time it will be 267% of GDP. That is what it says in this document. If we carry on as we are, we will have a national debt of 267% of GDP because of the rising cost of what is called demographics. That is mainly healthcare but also the state pension and other aspects of the pensions system. Overwhelmingly, however, it is healthcare. Adult social care will double as a percentage of GDP as well.
I should declare an interest in the sense that I had an indirect role in the creation of the health and social care levy, and it is fair to say that I have many reservations about what we are doing today. As colleagues know, the former Prime Minister—who deserves great credit for this—was determined that we would not just have another Green Paper or White Paper on social care. He wanted to actually deliver something for the country and he introduced the cap that had been promised by successive Governments, so that although people who have saved hard and have assets have to contribute to their care, they know that there is a limit. It is incredibly important that we brought that forward, and I sincerely hope that in removing the funding mechanism for the cap, the Treasury will resist the temptation to water it down. Local authorities are not yet aware of exactly what the cap will cover, and with the funding stream gone, the Treasury must resist the temptation to water the cap down. That is absolutely paramount.
When the Prime Minister came forward with wanting to pursue the cap, it was the view of the then Chancellor —my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), who I had the privilege of being Parliamentary Private Secretary to throughout the pandemic—that it must be funded, and that it could not just go on the national credit card. The social care cap on its own is massive rising liability. I have just set out what is going to happen to health costs more generally. So, how to fund social care? The most common suggestion was an increase in national insurance, for the simple reason that it applies to businesses and individuals and so raises the sorts of revenue we can get. It is not easily avoided, and it can give us the money in the bank to pay for these expensive costs that we face.
However, I submitted a paper to the Chancellor at the time and suggested that, rather than having just a narrow national insurance levy—a social care levy, as it were—we should have a full health and social care levy that should be hypothecated and appear as an explicit line on people’s payslips. It will be there on our payslips until November. I accept that we have not made the most of it, and there has been almost no enthusiasm from any quarter—possibly only from the social care sector—but with a transparent, hypothecated statement on payslips, if the NHS came back to us two years into a five-year funding settlement saying, “We need this additional big item,” we could say, “Fine, but it will come out of the levy.” That would be transparent, and it would have provided the discipline that we have terribly lacked in health spending for many years, under successive Governments. I thought it had great potential, but it is being vapourised today. The Prime Minister has a mandate for it and the whole House seems to support that view, as does the Labour party even though it does not have the foggiest idea how it would fill the gap.
Peter Grant
The former Prime Minister had a mandate to do what he did last year. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) says the new Prime Minister has a mandate to do this. Where did that mandate come from? I do not remember Parliament being dissolved for a general election in the last couple of months.
James Cartlidge
The new Prime Minister would rightly say that our manifesto said we would not increase national insurance, so she can draw on the mandate of the general election. We also seem to have vapourised our memory of the pandemic, but I would argue that it changed everything. The enormous borrowing accrued to this Government during the pandemic, which everyone supported—everyone wanted even more spending and even more support for businesses and individuals, as I remember because I was the then Chancellor’s PPS—made it exceptional, and we had to balance the books. I make it clear that this was not my preference, as I would not have wanted a levy to fund the NHS and social care. Given the politics of the time, it was the best way forward.
This is my personal view about how we should move forward. The key point is that the NHS is free at the point of delivery, which means we pay with time. When something is free, people wait and there are massive queues. Of course, those queues have been massively exacerbated by the pandemic, which is why the backlogs are so big, but it is blindingly obvious that the pressure on the NHS is overwhelming. There is almost infinite demand on finite capacity.
Labour Members will say in any election campaign, as we will. “We will do everything possible to increase capacity.” The Deputy Prime Minister and Health Secretary will, of course, do everything possible through her ABCD—ambulances, backlogs, care, doctors and dentists —strategy to improve outcomes in the NHS, but when we talk about funding the NHS, when we talk about the obligation to our grandchildren and the next generation, we have to be more radical, frankly.
In my view, we need a core NHS that is free at the point of delivery, but as a country we need to drive up the use of the independent sector and of private healthcare from all those brilliant companies that are seeing take-up shoot through the roof because of the backlogs. I know some of this territory is difficult to talk about, but I will give three key reasons why we should go down this route. First, every single person who pays to go private is freeing up space on the backlog. They are also boosting NHS capacity.
Secondly, this is standard in comparable countries. The Republic of Ireland, Australia and Germany have tax incentives for people to pay for their healthcare. There is an understanding that people who go to that trouble should have some kind of rebate, because they are doing everyone else a favour.
Thirdly, this is already happening. The post-Beveridge revolution is happening, and it is happening silently. There has been a massive surge in the number of people paying privately for healthcare. The Guardian recently published figures estimating that one in 10 adults in the UK has paid for private healthcare in the past 12 months, primarily because of the backlogs. Use has surged, according to the Independent Healthcare Providers Network. The number of people paying for hip replacements was up 193% in January to March 2022 compared with January to March 2019, and the number of people paying for knee replacements was up 173%. This is a huge surge in the number of people paying privately. It is true that many of them will not have wanted to do so, and I am not suggesting that they will have been delighted. Of course, we all want everyone to be able to use the NHS without long waits—that is clearly the ideal scenario—but it is not deliverable any more, not least with the demographic pressures we face.
We should look at the surging use of the independent sector and embrace it as a policy opportunity. Research from the Independent Healthcare Providers Network shows that 48% of people in this country will consider going private in the next 12 months because they know about the waits. This is about choice, and the most important thing is to have greater tax incentives for people to use the independent sector, so that people think about making a realistic choice. We should not settle for long waits for care any more. This is standard practice in comparable European and Australasian countries.
To be very specific, going back to the OBR document I mentioned, as a country we face a huge liability for health and social care. We should target increasing the percentage of our healthcare spend that goes to the independent sector so that we have a better balance, more like the balance in comparable European countries. If we did that, we would get much better outcomes, we would have more choice and we would finally have a 21st-century healthcare system with diversity of provision, which is the best way forward.
We should recognise that the revolution is happening, and it needs to happen with the Government’s backing and support.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the SNP spokesperson, Richard Thomson.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It was a little over a year ago that the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the House that this health and social care levy
“will enable the Government to tackle the backlog in the NHS. It will provide a new permanent way to pay for the Government’s reforms”.—[Official Report, 14 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 845.]
That was quite a spectacular U-turn on the Conservative party’s 2019 manifesto. Page 2, signed by the then Prime Minister, made a solemn pledge:
“We will not raise the rate of income tax, VAT or National Insurance.”
To be back here, just over a year later, seeing a reversal is really quite something. Describing it as a U-turn does not do it justice. An antisocial driver doing donuts in the car park of the local supermarket is the best analogy for how out of control this approach seems to be.
The UK Government published a health and social care levy policy paper when the levy was introduced, and I distinctly remember this quote:
“This levy provides a UK-wide approach which enables us to pool and share risks and resources across the UK”.
It was therefore highly enjoyable to listen to the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury claiming that, now the levy is being repealed, the reverse also happens to be true, in terms of the UK-wide approach to pooling and sharing.
I spoke in the debate when the levy was introduced, and I recall that there was a sparsity of Back Benchers prepared to provide political cover for their Government’s change of heart. Quite clearly, an awful lot has changed since then. We have a new Prime Minister, who makes much of the fact that she is prepared to be unpopular, which is probably just as well in the light of recent events. She also tells us, and the Chief Secretary repeated it today, that there is apparently a sinister grouping at work outside this place—the anti-growth coalition. I will not go through all the groups that supposedly comprise this coalition, but it seems to be anyone who has the temerity or the audacity to disagree with the Prime Minister, so it probably includes about half the Cabinet and most Conservative Back Benchers.
Hywel Williams
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the Government’s assault with such frivolity. Does he know how one joins this anti-growth coalition? When does it meet? Does it provide lunch? Does one have to apply through the currently absent Minister? Is there a form on the internet, as there is for everything else?
Richard Thomson
I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I do not have any answers. From a Marxist perspective—a Groucho Marxist perspective—I would not want to be part of any club that would have me as a member. I am sure the T-shirts are being printed and will be available very soon.
The Government Benches were rather sparse in our previous debate on the levy. Judging by some of the contributions and the exceptionally well-targeted friendly fire, the Government clearly have some way to go to persuade their Members on not only the sincerity of their commitments on health and social care, but their broader approach to managing the economy.
Scottish National party Members had concerns about the levy at the time as a means of achieving the policy objectives outlined. In our view, it was unclear what the additional resource would be used for, other than in the broadest of terms. The near £13 billion levy seemed to us to be an arbitrary amount, unconnected to any clear plan for how the funds might be used to tackle the pressures in the NHS—far less for how that resource, and how much of it, would end up being passported through to meet the challenges in the care sector. We also remarked that there was no sign of the accompanying reforms that would be necessary to get better outcomes on integrating health and social care services in England, as has been done in Scotland and as will be built on through the establishment of a national care service by the end of the current Scottish parliamentary term. The levy was also introduced, and is now being withdrawn, without our having had any indication from the OBR—although we believe the work has been done—of the impact not just of this but all the other fiscal choices that now sit around it.
To say that the UK Government are in complete disarray in their approach not just to health and social care but to managing the economy, would be a kindness and an understatement. They are abandoning the national insurance rise in favour of increased borrowing, just as the Chancellor’s limited fiscal event has resulted in borrowing growing considerably more expensive. They are introducing tax cuts, which are intended to be funded in part by cuts to public expenditure, and those will inevitably feed through to pressures on the health and social care sectors that the levy was supposed to be bolstering. With the rampant inflation we now see in our economy, any resource that makes it through to the health and social care sectors will not travel as far as it would have done—those pounds will buy less. The huge post-pandemic health and social care problems that we face in common across these islands have also been made that much worse by the botched nature of the mini-Budget.
John Appleby, the director of research and chief economist at the health think tank the Nuffield Trust, is surely correct when he warns that the funding ball is now back in the Government’s court, saying:
“They will have to fund the commitment through some combination of borrowing and deprioritising other public spending”.
Let us be realistic about this: that is a far more likely set of outcomes than seeing the commitment being met through ambitions for growth, no matter how loudly and repeatedly they are stated.
To be clear, SNP Members never believed that a levy on national insurance was the way to achieve the objectives of meeting those challenges. It is tempting to go back to what was said on 24 March, when Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, called the Government to account in The Times newspaper, saying:
“Why promise to spend billions cutting the basic rate of income tax whilst going ahead with an increase in NI rates? That will make the tax system both less equitable and less efficient. It will increase the wedge between higher taxes on earnings and lower taxes on pensions and unearned incomes. And wouldn’t that money have been better spent sooner helping those most in need?”
That was an excellent question then and it remains so today.
Let us be clear that the funding challenge goes beyond the challenges of the economy, to meeting the parallel challenge presented by the growing and complex demands of an ageing population. In meeting that challenge, it is important that we are able to meet the demands and needs of patients, service users and staff with dignity and compassion, while making sure that the responsibility for contributing towards that financially is a burden shared fairly and equitably.
In financial terms, that is going to be met through a combination of revenue spend and capital spend. The way in which that cost is shared will come down to political choices over how much is to be borrowed and how the tax system is to be balanced over the longer term. We certainly wait with a mixture of bated breath and nervousness as to what the Chancellor will finally bring forward later this month. I make no apology for repeating this point: it must be fairer, as a general principle, to spread the burden by increasing income taxes across the board on both earned and unearned income, as well as to look again at areas such as inheritance taxes and capital gains, so that the totality of the wealth right across the nations of these islands can be taken into consideration when sharing that burden.
Instead, we seem to have a piecemeal and incoherent approach to reform from this Government, allied to an equally piecemeal and incoherent approach to taxation and the wider economy. It is often said of a person’s character that, when someone shows you who they are, you should believe them. My goodness, haven’t we in the past three weeks seen exactly what the essential character of this Government is when it comes to their priorities? We have seen that instinct revealed in the decision to unapologetically lift the cap on bankers’ bonuses. We see it in the attempts to cut taxes for the richest, to give least to those who need it most and to hack back on the public services that enable people to live the best lives they possibly can, irrespective of their personal circumstances. We see it in the resulting economic chaos and the fiction that out of that chaos growth will emerge, which somehow makes all of this additional borrowing affordable.
In some kind of conclusion, it is clear that the problems that led to this levy being identified as a solution in health and social care have not disappeared, even if the levy itself is about to. The Chief Secretary repeated the Prime Minister’s lamentable jibe about the “anti-growth coalition”. As the chaos that has emerged from the mini-Budget shows, the solutions to the myriad problems we face are not going to be found among the dangerous, disruptive ideologues who cause mayhem by supergluing themselves to the policy prescriptions of the Institute of Economic Affairs. They can be found only by building long-term value in the economy and making sure that the burden for doing so is shared equitably among all people and all businesses that can make the contribution that they need to.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I am grateful for the chance to speak on Second Reading and to follow considered speeches by right hon. and hon. Members. I am particularly pleased to see the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), in his place. I knew him for many years before coming to this place and he brings real expertise to the Front Bench, notwithstanding the fact that he has very big shoes to fill—that’s for sure.
The repeal of the health and social care levy is part of the Government’s growth plan. The key elements of the plan to address cost of living challenges, caused largely by President Putin’s savage attacks on Ukraine, are most welcome. The energy price guarantee helps to limit the price of fuel bills for households across the country for two years, while the energy bill relief scheme provides similar support for businesses right across the country. Those steps are particularly welcome to the small and medium-sized businesses, both in Macclesfield and across the country, which have felt particularly exposed to the sharp increases in energy costs.
I understand the desire for greater growth and for reducing the tax burden. I recognise that many businesses and working people will be pleased to see the health and social care levy being reversed. They will be able to keep more of what they earn and decide how best to use the saving for their own business or household. I acknowledge that many business owners will welcome another element of the growth plan: the planned rise in corporation tax will not go ahead either. That said, I believe it is important to see the removal of the health and social care levy, and other proposed tax reductions, in the context of the wider economy and our public finances.
Financial markets have shown concerns about the cumulative effects of the policies set out in the growth plan, as was eloquently set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) earlier, and the lack of an associated OBR forecast to help set out an independent view has been unsettling. The forecast will help provide an independent view of the plan’s impact on our public finances and on the levels of the Government’s borrowing and debt. That is why I was pleased to learn that the Chancellor will bring forward to 31 October his statement on the medium-term fiscal strategy, and that Treasury Ministers and officials will, as is necessary, work closely with the OBR over the weeks ahead. It is vital that the Chancellor sets out his fiscal strategy soon, to help explain how the measures in the growth plan, including the impact of reversing the levy, will be funded and what they will mean for the Government’s spending plans, such as the funding for NHS backlogs and social care that the levy sought to address, as highlighted very well by my hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Steve Brine) and for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge).
The latest timing also means that documents will be available before the next meeting of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee on 3 November. They will help provide additional, much-needed information for the markets, to colleagues here in Parliament and, of course, to our constituents. As the Prime Minister has said, in hindsight more could have been done to roll the pitch and communicate the growth plan before the Chancellor’s statement on 23 September.
In addition to the steps to lower taxes, such as the reversal of the levy, and to tackle energy cost challenges, the growth plan includes several innovative plans, such as the investment zones to help drive growth. In Cheshire East, our vibrant life science sector and industrial hubs would represent an exciting opportunity for such a zone to drive sustainable economic growth. That is just an idea, of course, for the Chief Secretary.
I wish that we could spend more time talking about such opportunities, but we have to accept that we cannot wish away market concerns. We have to recognise where we are, and the Treasury needs to take the time to communicate and explain its plans in more detail and in the context of the wider economy. With that in mind, I am pleased that the Chancellor earlier agreed with the Chair of the Treasury Committee on the need to further engage with and counsel colleagues in this House over the weeks ahead.
To conclude, this Bill will see the health and social care levy reversed. That policy and the implementation and phasing of other measures in the growth plan aim to help lift growth and will have wider economic consequences, so let us take the time to understand them more fully. Like many colleagues, I am a strong supporter of free enterprise. I recognise that lower taxes have a role to play in driving growth. As is often said, there is a time to every purpose, and at heart I am a fiscal conservative.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats were opposed to this tax to start with. We opposed the national insurance levy when it was introduced last year. Our argument at the time was that it would disproportionately impact lower earners and hit working families at precisely the time when they were struggling to pay their bills and prices were starting to increase in shops. We are really pleased that it is being reversed, and we support this Bill.
We must not ignore the fact, however, that a great deal of damage has been done in the past six months, during which employees, the self-employed and employers have been charged with this levy. During that time, employees and the self-employed will have paid about £2.5 billion, and businesses about £3.8 billion. One of the main disruptions is that it has been incredibly disruptive to businesses. I speak with some feeling as an accountant who in a previous life spent many hours working on payrolls and forecasting employee costs. I can only imagine what it must have been like for businesses over the past three years. In 2019, a Conservative Government came in promising not to increase any business taxes, but in 2021 they increased national insurance, and now here they are in 2022 reversing that increase. That is an awful lot of change for businesses to have to deal with, and that is quite apart from the increased costs that they will have borne over the past six months.
Let us think about the impact that that cost will have had on businesses. They will have been thinking, “Which employees can we have? If we want to grow our business, how many employees can we afford to take on?” They will have revised those assumptions in the light of the increased cost of national insurance, so we can only assume that the six-month increase will have stunted the very growth that the Conservatives say that they want to see, and that it will have contributed in part to the economic slowdown, not least because the impact on employees will have decreased their take-home pay, and that, of course, will have decreased their consumption.
What businesses need above all is certainty and stability, but that has been continually undermined by this Government and their constant chopping and changing of national insurance. This, of course, is happening at a time of a huge increase not just in inflation but, as has been mentioned several times, in energy costs, primarily as a result of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. That is also having a massive impact on businesses in this country, and the chopping and changing of the costs of employing staff will not have helped.
It has always been our argument that tax could have been more productively raised by an expanded windfall tax, which we have been calling for since last autumn. We are very pleased that the Government took on board some of our suggestions, but both Shell and BP have said that the Government could have gone further. Potentially up to an extra £60 billion of taxes could have been levied on oil and gas firms, which would have negated the need not just for the national insurance increase but for many of the other unfunded borrowing commitments that the Government made on 23 September.
Now that we are repealing the health and social care levy, it is important to remember—the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) made this point very well—that we still have to deal with a crisis in health and social care. The Government must immediately set out their plans. We all anticipate the much-awaited fiscal event on 31 October with a huge amount of excitement but, more than anything, we need to hear from the Government their plans for health and social care, because there is no doubt that the backlog in NHS hospitals is in itself having an impact on growth. I saw figures today that suggested that the number of people suffering from a long-term sickness that prevents them from working is at a record high. We can all see how that has come about from the events of the past few years, but these are people who cannot be available for work and who cannot contribute to the Government’s “growth, growth, growth” agenda; they are not able to take up posts in what we know now is a record number of vacancies simply because they are waiting for treatment. We welcome this reversal, but the Government must state, and soon, what they plan to do to address the backlog.
Of course, this is not just about health; it is also about social care. There are 130,000 vacancies across our social care sector, and we know that that is caused by chronic underfunding. It cannot offer the kinds of salaries that care workers can find in other sectors. The shortage of care workers and of places in care homes is having a knock-on impact on our hospitals. I was at Kingston Hospital recently and was told that the reason it has problems, and one of the big contributors to its backlog, is that it cannot discharge patients because there is no care package for them to be looked after in their homes. The issue of social care, health and the backlog needs to be addressed urgently. It was not being addressed when the legislation to increase national insurance was first brought in, and it is not being addressed now. We urgently need to hear more from the Government on that.
I say to the Government that we would support an increase in the windfall tax and that we oppose their plans to reverse the planned increase in corporation tax, which I believe is what is creating the biggest need for the additional borrowing announced on 23 September. The Government urgently need to look at that again and at all the plans announced by the Chancellor on 23 September, and I for one am very keen to see what they come up with on 31 October.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I welcome this decision to repeal the regressive hikes to national insurance, which would have seen those least able to pay with the heaviest proportional tax burden to tackle the crisis in social care. This is the right thing to do, but it should never have happened in the first place. Tax rises on the poorest, especially during a cost of living crisis, are cruel and unnecessary.
We now need urgent reassurances from the Minister that new funding for adult social care will come from progressive taxation and the pockets of those who can most afford it. We must be clear that a U-turn is not a plan; it is the absence of one. We still have no answers from the Government about how they plan to tackle the crisis in adult social care or where the funding will come from, other than to wait until 31 October for the medium-term fiscal plan.
Twelve years of Tory austerity have already seen £8 billion taken out of the social care system. Now we are facing a winter of hardship driven by the rampant cost of living crisis. Instead of bringing forward measures that will help the poorest and those most in need, the Government are prioritising tax cuts for the rich and public service cuts for the rest of us. They have removed the triple-lock protections on pensions and are refusing to commit to raising benefits in line with inflation. They have made disastrous economic decisions that have crashed the economy and made the cost of living crisis one of the worst among comparable countries.
Local governments are being forced to make further crippling cuts, as well as find extra money for energy costs and inflation to maintain their public services. We know that adult social care provision will suffer. Liverpool has lost £465 million of our budget since the start of austerity, which is more than two thirds of our overall budget since 2010. Liverpool, like other cities, has a growing elderly population with increasing complex needs, including dementia.
We urgently need a big injection of funding to councils’ care budgets alongside a social care workforce strategy to meet rising demands. We are facing unprecedented staff shortages in the health and social care sectors, with more than 165,000 vacancies and a massive staff turnover of 30% a year. In Liverpool, 15% of our social care workers are employed on zero-hours contracts and we have a vacancy rate of over 10%. Without action, the consequences will be devastating. We must be absolutely clear: a shortage of staff costs lives. It is as simple as that.
We are about to face a second round of Tory austerity, with £43 billion to be slashed from public services that have already been decimated during 12 years of Tory Government. Instead of more cuts, we need a serious injection of cash into adult social care and a plan to bring those services back in-house to end the rampant profiteering of companies backed by private equity funds, which sucks public money out of the system and out of services and straight into tax havens in the Cayman Islands to be hoarded by the super-rich. Decent pay, terms and conditions for undervalued employees must take centre stage of any serious plans to tackle the deep-rooted structural issues in the social care sector along with a long-term workforce strategy and improved quality and standards of care.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has committed to maintaining the same levels of funding on health and social care despite today’s cancellation of the levy. However, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are crowing about this reversal to national insurance contributions as a key victory in their tax-cutting agenda, which will see £43 billion slashed from public services. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government will commit to spending the same planned £12.4 billion a year over the next three years that would have been raised by this levy? A simple yes or no answer would be great, thank you.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I do not often say this, but I welcome the decision that the Government have taken, which is to U-turn on their increase in national insurance contributions, although I utterly reject any suggestion that it should be coupled with any watering down of the previous commitments on funding for health and social care services.
I do not think that national insurance is the right name for this tax. It is an income tax—a jobs tax—and we should be honest about what it is doing. It is a jobs tax because if a person has a job, they pay tax on the money that they get paid for doing their job— unless they are earning way below the minimum full-time wage. If they are an employer, they pay tax on the wages that they pay someone for doing the job for them. It is only if a person is lucky enough to be able to make most of their money from owning shares or property that they can earn significant amounts of money without paying national insurance on that income. I have to say that not many of my constituents who are struggling on a minimum wage and part-time jobs are that impressed by the fact that they can get national insurance-free income from their share portfolios, because they cannot afford to buy them in the first place.
This is a form of income tax—a jobs tax—specifically targeted at working people. It is not even an insurance as such. I pay insurance on my car. If I am involved in an accident, I have a guarantee that the insurance company will pay its share of the costs. People do not get that guarantee just because they have been paying national insurance contributions all their life. Just ask the WASPI women—of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—how much of an insurance scheme guarantee they actually get from national insurance.
The legislation that we are being asked to repeal today—and it looks like it will be repealed today without a Division—introduced a form of hypothecated tax, which is not something that I would generally support. Nobody has really mentioned that in this debate, and it did not get much coverage in the debate last year. Other than for very time-limited and precisely defined purposes, hypothecated taxes do not really work. Filling in a small part of the decades-long underfunding in some of our most important public services is neither time limited nor specific.
Whatever we are going to do to change the tax system to get adequate funding for these services, a single, specific hypothecated tax is never going to be it. I have been consistent on this. I find it interesting that nobody who has spoken in this debate in favour of repealing the levy has explained why they voted for it in the first place last year. I note that sometimes people are allowed to change their minds regularly, whereas at other times people are not allowed to change their minds from eight years ago.
Our health and social care services are among our most precious public services. Universal healthcare—including free prescriptions—free at the point of delivery, based only on clinical need rather than the ability to pay, is surely an essential part of any civilised society. I would say the same about social care. I am proud that in Scotland we have free personal care for those who need it, regardless of whether they can afford to pay for it. I welcome the steps that the Scottish Government have taken to reduce the financial burden on those who need other forms of social care as well. All of these services are available to everybody and they should be paid for by everybody according to our means through general taxation. I am not ashamed to say that if I had to pay a wee bit extra tax that I could easily afford in order to provide a civilised society for my people to live in, I would do so willingly.
Those principles are now under direct attack, even more so than they were under the previous Prime Minister, and even more so than they were in the dark days of Margaret Thatcher. We now have a Prime Minister who has chosen to surround herself with people whose links to the NHS privatisation lobby are not hard to find. It does not need to be direct privatisation; it is very easy to privatise the health service by stealth, simply by strangling it of funds so that the waiting list becomes so long that people choose to pay for a health service that they have already paid for through their taxes.
That is why it is essential that we get a commitment from this Government that not only will there not be a reduction in cash terms in health service funding or in social care funding, but that those budgets will increase by enough to cover the cost of inflation as it hits those services. Historically, inflation in the health service has usually been higher than the headline rate of inflation. The headline rate of inflation is savage enough just now. It is likely that the true cost of inflation to the health service is even higher. I asked the Chancellor about this directly a few weeks ago when he issued his mini-Budget. Scandalously, he refused to give a commitment that funding in the health service will even keep pace with inflation, never mind increasing to meet what we can all see is an unmet demand.
Part of the reason that the NHS is coming under unprecedented pressure is that the policies and deliberate choices of this Government and their predecessors have forced people into poverty and destitution, and that has an impact on people’s health, which creates additional demand on the NHS. As others have pointed out, having people on health service waiting lists unable to work damages the economy. If the economy is damaged in such a way that it affects the funding of the health service—if, for example, people are given lower wages, are put under financial stress and are unable to afford the cost of living—that in turn damages our health, and to an extent that we perhaps have not properly realised until recently.
A recent study by the University of Glasgow and the Glasgow Centre for Population Health found nearly 335,000 excess deaths in the UK in the past seven years that were caused by austerity. Deliberate policy choices by this and previous Tory Governments since 2012 have killed more people than the covid pandemic. That is a scandalous thing to happen in any country that claims to be civilised. That is why we cannot fully consider the provisions of this Bill, or the provisions of the Act of Parliament that it seeks to repeal, in isolation from the wider policies of a Government who seem hellbent on plunging even more people into poverty, while lining the pockets of their own billionaire supporters and donors.
To give just one example, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was delighted to tell us earlier that the combination of not increasing the national insurance levy and the previously announced changes to income tax thresholds will amount to a whopping £500 per year back in the pockets of my lowest-earning constituents. They are paying between £1,200 and £1,500 a year more just for the heat in their homes compared with last year, so the generous £500 a year that the Government are putting back into their pockets is less than half of what my constituents need just to stand still for electricity and gas prices. That is before they start to pay their increased costs of food, rent and mortgages for those able to buy their own homes.
That should not be inevitable. My constituents live in a country in which 85% of energy does not come from gas, so why do they see their bills doubling when there is a gas shortage? My constituents live in a country that supplies more energy than it needs and has a commodity that is in short supply, so why are they so much worse off when the value of the commodity that we have in surplus increases on the global market? Those are not questions that Treasury Ministers or other Ministers in this place do not know the answers to; they are questions that they are scared to face up to the answers to.
Repealing this legislation when the ink is hardly dry on the paper serves to illustrate yet again the total chaos that this Government are in. That chaos has spread to the whole of these islands, and they seem quite happy to inflict it on the financial markets, despite the impact they know it will have on people’s standard of living now and the pensions they will be able to rely on in the future.
The Government’s persistent refusal to provide a costed plan to ensure sufficient and sustainable funding for those vital services, directly through funding in England and indirectly through Barnett consequentials on the devolved nations, and their persistent refusal to put health and social care services on a proper and sustainable funding basis demonstrate clearly that our national health service can never be safe in the hands of this or any other Westminster Government.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Before I get into the Bill, I want to note some of the remarks made by the Government on their energy package and the speed with which that was brought forward. Given that this is the first opportunity we have to discuss these financial matters, I want to record that it felt during recess as though almost every day in August people were begging the Government to act, and they did not. We waited and waited, while they had an internal debate when they could have acted. For 12 years, in fact, it has seemed that the British economy has had both deep-rooted problems and significant shocks. Given the situation before us and the chaos we face, would not any Government want to act?
That brings us to today’s Bill, which is essentially a U-turn. As colleagues have said, the Government are showing here that they can U-turn, but what we need now is much more significant action. We can say with certainty that the Chancellor has already made a considerable impression on the economy. He inherited a cost of living crisis and for good measure added a cost of borrowing crisis, an interest rate crisis, a mortgage crisis, a sterling crisis, a Government bond crisis and a pension funds crisis.
Inflation was already at its highest rate in 40 years, devouring household wages and savings; Shell, ExxonMobil and Chevron recorded their highest ever profits and household energy bills doubled within a year. Thanks to this Government, the pound has slumped to its lowest value against the dollar since Britain went decimal in 1971, and the Bank of England has been forced to launch an emergency £65 billion bond-buying scheme that, as we saw yesterday, has barely stopped the chaos.
Thanks to this Government, in the blink of an eye the average homeowner now faces a monthly mortgage payment that is £500 more expensive and food bank use has soared to such an extent—[Interruption.] Do not say it is global. The food bank increase is not global; it is a feature of the UK economy, and it has soared to such an extent that volunteers will need either to turn people away or to reduce the size of emergency rations. That is the situation we face, and that is why this Bill must not represent the last U-turn from this Government.
We have heard from various Conservative Members that they are the party of tradition, so let me commend the Government on respecting a long-standing Conservative tradition in their conduct relating to our economy. Just like on 16 September 1992, Conservative Governments always end up sacrificing family finances to pay for their chaos.
This Chancellor, in his airy disregard for experts, produced a Budget so complacent, so unfunded and so unconvincing to the markets that the cost of our long-term borrowing soared. His doubters are now not just the members of the Labour party; they include bond traders, the currency markets, the civil service, the OBR, the Bank of England, the IMF and the British public.
The Conservatives have pierced a hole in the British economy, and the effects are widespread and severe. Pension funds were brought to the edge of collapse and, before the Bank of England intervened, we risked falling into a self-perpetuating spiral,
“threatening severe disruption of core funding markets and consequent widespread financial instability.”
To be so ignorant, so high-handed and so willing to risk impoverishing people is unforgivable.
It is some small comfort that today the Tories are reversing their own rise in national insurance. U-turn follows U-turn and we return to square one. However, this zig-zagging incoherence is not just a waste of parliamentary time and energy, but damaging to our stability and our credibility. No matter whether they raise taxes or lower them, high-quality public services and economic growth will continue to elude the Conservatives. That is because, as has been said so often, economic strength does not come just from the top; it starts in the everyday lives of working people right across our great country. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) explained well what is happening right now for people trying to work. Thanks to the Conservatives, record waiting lists see acute conditions becoming chronic and more and more people having to leave the labour market. Do not crow about unemployment being at historically low levels when inactivity—people simply unable to work—is shooting up again, as we found today.
James Cartlidge
Just to clarify, what I said was that it was due to the pandemic—not entirely, but everything the Labour party says now is airbrushing out of history the greatest post-war trauma that the country faced, when there was an enormous surge in borrowing, which we all supported, to fund the support for businesses and people in our constituencies. At some point, will Labour recognise the impact that had and the action we had to take, which has led to decisions such as these tax increases?
Alison McGovern
The impact of the pandemic on our labour market and our health service has been profound. It should inspire us to see the capabilities of the people within our health service, and it should show us the undeniable truth that there will be no economic health in this country without securing the health of the people of this country. That is what the pandemic shows us. I simply ask that the party in government today, the Conservative party, learns that lesson.
If we look at what is going on with our labour market, we see that part of the growth plan must be to secure our health service, get waiting lists down and get people back to good health. We have heard that funding for health and social care services will be untouched, so let me assure the Government—already so elastic with their commitments—that their promise on the health service will be under heightened surveillance in months to come.
The Government say that they have a growth plan to end their cycle of stagnation and to radically overhaul what has been dragging us down, but that plan simply has no credibility. It is delayed and delayed. Until we see what they truly believe can help this country grow, all we see is the cost of borrowing growing, inflation growing, mortgage payments growing, food bank use growing and child poverty growing, while the true opportunities that this country has—its people and their talents—are left wasted.
Who asked for this? Who nodded happily at higher mortgage repayments? Who wanted public services to be slashed or spiralling inequality? There is no consent for this, as we have seen—not even consent on the Tory Back Benches. The resulting damage to our economy is immediate and sharp, but there is another danger that emerges slower but is just as great: the risk to our relationship with the British people.
I worry that we have short memories in this place. Only three months ago, more than 60 Ministers fled the Government of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). For some time, that Government were viewed with real anger by the public, who overcame the pandemic through shared sacrifice, only to feel cheated, insulted and taken for fools by their Government. Well, the British people are not fools, Madam Deputy Speaker. They understand that this winter, whether it is due to soaring energy bills, surging inflation or the war in Ukraine, shared sacrifice is needed again. In return, they are owed compassionate, responsible leadership and a Government who can look them in the eye.
This is not a time for economic hobbyism—for testing pet theories like schoolboys in the common room—and ignoring the country. Not even two people in every 1,000 voted for the Prime Minister or her Chancellor. Britain did not choose to be experimented on in this way. When the Chancellor delivered his crazy Budget on 23 September, everyone in this country was united in experiencing that act of economic vandalism. When children are hungry, pensioners colder and families fearful, the Chancellor avoided the profits of energy giants and signed off unfunded tax giveaways for millionaires. In waving through bigger bonuses for bankers, he took a torch to our social contract. Instead of shared sacrifice, this gang of fanatics on the Treasury Bench turned to casino economics and gambled away public trust.
It is an old, old saying that you can judge a person by what they choose to do with power. After 12 years of the Tories in power, the veneer has worn off, revealing the same old ideas that have been tested to destruction in this country: run the country on the cheap, leave public services crumbling and make working people pay the price. The big society—remember that?—has been and gone, one nation conservatism is a painted shell, and the façade of levelling up has been abandoned, as they cut taxes for millionaires and look set to cut benefits for the poor. It does not matter whether it is this Prime Minister or whoever soon replaces her—this is the Conservative project and it has been there all along.
It is the single greatest privilege in this country to sit on the Treasury Bench. Instead of living up to that honour, the Conservative party is hopeless, reckless, callous and weak. There is no consent for this Government’s ideas, and they should be driven out of office. If they really are such a confident group of free thinkers, surely they have nothing to fear from taking their pitch to the country.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Richard Fuller)
It is a pleasure to close this debate on behalf of the Government. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this relatively short debate. I think it is fair to say that none of us came here expecting to find a perfect consensus, but it was rather pleasing to hear the measure welcomed by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), and the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant). I thank all those Opposition Members for their support.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) and my long-standing hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) for their speeches and my hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Steve Brine) and for Salisbury (John Glen) for their interventions. If there was one message from the four of them, it was on the importance of fiscal responsibility. That was heard loud and clear, and it has been resonated by the Chancellor again and again, including today. Truly, it is the essence of conservatism, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk said. I noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said about the Treasury working more closely with the OBR and about the engagement requested by the Chair of the Treasury Committee. I assure him that the Treasury team will engage as he has suggested.
This has been a serious debate for the most part. It looked like it was getting into levity at one point, when the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), who unfortunately is no longer in his place, volunteered to be a member of the anti-growth coalition. He said it was important that there was a free lunch. The hon. Member for Gordon spoke about not joining a club and invoked Marx, although not the Marx who was the favourite of the former Opposition spokesperson on finance.
At times, there were clear points of ideology in respect of the plan. It is clear that the purpose of the Chancellor’s growth plan is to improve lives across the country over the long term. Growing the economy must be our guiding mission, and with this Government it is. We will do so through lower taxes, through improved infrastructure, by supporting skilled employment, by removing barriers to investment, by getting the housing market moving, by making Britain an even better place to do business and by ensuring that people who earn money keep more of it so that they can make their own decisions—that includes our businesses.
I heard from the Opposition spokesperson that their plan comprises two aspects. First, it is the Government—a Labour Government—who should decide the right way to achieve growth in this country, rather than the wealth creators and businesses. Labour wishes to make those decisions on behalf of all of us. Many of us on this side of the House know where that sort of central planning ends up.
Secondly, those with the broadest shoulders should bear the burden. I just warn hon. Members to measure how broad their shoulders are. My fear is that it is not those with broad shoulders but anyone with shoulders who bears the burden. My point is this: the starting position for Labour’s plan is that this year, 2022-23, those in the top 1% of the income distribution are estimated to receive 13% of all income, but already pay 30% of all income tax liabilities. Those in the bottom 50% of the income distribution are estimated to pay only 8.3% of all income tax. When Labour says that it wants to fund its plans through general taxation, it is not looking for the 1% to pay; it is looking for people on average and low incomes to pay. The Conservative party does not think that is the right way to achieve growth.
Richard Fuller
I will come to the hon. Gentleman if I have time.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson gave a very good speech and raised important broader issues. She welcomed the measure and spoke about the costs that have been paid by people and businesses—she gave the figures £2.5 billion and £3.8 billion. That underlines the important contribution this measure will make by putting money back into the pockets of households as they face the winter crisis and into the hands of businesses as they make their investment decisions.
The hon. Lady kindly spoke about her past as an accountant—not everyone would necessarily volunteer their past as an accountant. She spoke about some of the disruption there has been. I assure her that I have spoken, as has HMRC, to payroll software companies to assess what the level of disruption has been and whether this additional change will cause further disruption. In my conversations with them, they have said that there have been minimal costs to date and that the reversal will have minimal costs for them. That is just a selection of payroll software companies—there are others—but I can give her some assurance that there has perhaps been less disruption than she feared.
Sarah Olney
I thank the Minister for that assurance, but the point I was making was not so much about the technical implementation; I totally take his point that it is a software change. The point I was making was more about headcount forecasts and how many staff businesses can afford to take on. Changing the national insurance contribution that businesses make has a material impact on those forecasts and will have had an impact on how many new jobs have been created.
Richard Fuller
That is an interesting point, and it probably is worthy of further investigation. On the day when we have announced that the country has more vacancies than unemployment, and unemployment is at a long-term low, one would think that that impact has not been significant, but it is an issue that is worthy of further investigation. The other point that the hon. Lady made about the impact that hospital discharges may be having on social care—she talked about the hospital in her constituency—is a relevant one, and I am sure that it will be taken up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) asked, as others did, whether the changes to the levy will change the funding previously announced. I can assure her that the levy change makes no difference to the funding outlined.
Other points were made, and we will have further discussions in Committee. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made the point that the reversal of the levy is part of a much greater sum. Above all, it is about achieving the sustainable growth that this country needs and deserves. That is our mission as a Government, and it is the purpose of the Bill. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Further proceedings on the Bill stood postponed (Order, this day).
Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Bill (Money)
King’s Recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
(a) the payment of sums by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for payment into the National Insurance Fund, and
(b) the payment of sums out of the National Insurance Fund into the Consolidated Fund.—(Amanda Solloway.)
Question agreed to.
Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Bill
Tuesday 11th October 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Act 2022 View all Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 11 October 2022 - (11 Oct 2022)
19:41 - The House divided: - Ayes: 190 / Noes: 257 - Question accordingly negatived.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 2—Assessment of revenue effects on health and social care of increases in the rates of taxes on dividend and capital gains income—
‘The Treasury must lay before the House of Commons within 30 days of the date on which this Act is passed an assessment of the merits of raising at least the same amount of revenue for health and social care as would have been raised by the health and social care levy by instead bringing the rates of taxation on dividends and capital gains income in line with existing rates of taxation of earnings.’
This new clause would require the Treasury to report on an alternative to using the health and social care levy to fund health and social care, by raising more tax revenue from dividends and capital gains.
Schedule stand part.
James Murray
We know that the Bill is straightforward in what it seeks to achieve: as clause 1 sets out, it simply repeals the Health and Social Care Levy Act 2021. Ministers are asking us today to overturn a piece of legislation that they and their colleagues strained to defend and voted in favour of a little over a year ago.
As I set out on Second Reading, we welcome Ministers scrapping the tax rise on working people introduced by last year’s Act, but while the levy was not due to come in until April 2023, and the Bill means that the levy will never be charged, the Act also raised national insurance contributions for the current financial year 2022-23 as a transitional measure. As clause 2 confirms, the Bill keeps national insurance contributions at that higher level for the first seven months of this year, before letting them return to their previous levels from November. The decision by Ministers to scrap the national insurance rise is, of course, better to have come late than never, but this in-year change means that yet another cost will be paid for through working people’s taxes, as public money pays to undo the mess created by the Tories having made the wrong call last year. The explanatory notes to the Bill confirm that there will be a cost of an in-year change. Under “Financial implications of the Bill”, they state:
“HMRC anticipates increased call volumes and customer contact as a result of the in-year reduction of NICs rates. There will be delivery costs in implementing this policy. IT changes will be required to be delivered at additional cost to HMRC, to support safe delivery of this policy.”
All this could have been avoided if Ministers had simply listened to people across the country, to the Opposition, to Members on their own side, to the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI, the TUC and so many others. If Ministers had listened, they would have realised that it was wrong to go ahead with this tax rise on working people in the first place. While we know that the U-turn before us will cost more than if Ministers had made the right call last year, we do not have a figure from the explanatory notes for exactly how much this will cost. On that point, the Bill’s notes simply say that
“Costings will be set out in due course.”
In other times, I might have read that statement and concluded that Ministers genuinely do not know the costings, but if their behaviour over the OBR report is anything to go by, it could be that they are simply refusing to publish those costings for political reasons.
It is because of this Government’s lack of willingness to subject themselves to transparent scrutiny that we have tabled new clause 1. New clause 1 would require the Chancellor to publish a report on the financial implications of the Act on the day that it comes into force. That report must make an assessment of the Treasury’s plans to raise an amount of revenue equivalent to the proceeds of the levy in the context of its approach to general taxation and borrowing.
As I mentioned on Second Reading, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury confirmed in a letter sent to the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on 22 September that:
“The additional funding used to replace the expected revenue from the Levy will come from general taxation and may require further borrowing in the short-term.”
We already know that borrowing is set to soar thanks to the Government’s disastrous and discredited approach to the economy. We know that their approach has inflicted huge harm on our economy, damaged our international standing and pushed up mortgage payments for households across the country. We know in particular that the Government’s failure to publish the OBR report showing the detail behind their approach has aggravated the spooking effect on markets. Through our new clause, we would require the Government to explain how they will maintain the funding equivalent to the levy, given their wider reckless decisions on borrowing and the economy.
New clause 1 refers to general taxation. As Members may recall, when they announced the health and social care levy last year, the former Prime Minister and Chancellor explained that, alongside the national insurance increase, the Government would also increase taxes on income from dividends at the same time. On 7 September last year, the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), said:
“because we are also increasing dividends tax rates, we will be asking better-off business owners and investors to make a fair contribution too.”—[Official Report, 7 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 154.]
The question arises of why the current Prime Minister and Chancellor have decided to cut this tax rate from April 2023. They do not need to scrap the dividends tax rise as part of the repeal of the Health and Social Care Levy Act—the dividend rate does not appear in that Act—but they have none the less committed to doing so. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out whether he agrees with the former Prime Minister’s argument that having a higher tax rate on dividends means asking better-off people to make a fair contribution. If so, can he confirm why the Government have decided that it is the right time to cut taxes for those who are better off, even if that means greater borrowing funded by all taxpayers?
As I have made clear throughout, we are glad that the Government are using the Bill to finally scrap this tax rise on working people, but it is clear that taxpayers will pay yet again to fix the mess the Tories have created, that Ministers are planning to again cut taxes for those they have described as the better-off and that this Government are desperate to avoid scrutiny of their plans. It is with that final point in mind that we ask Conservative Members who are uncomfortable with their Government’s approach to join us in supporting new clause 1.
Our new clause would simply require the Treasury to be transparent about how it will replace the money for health and social care that will no longer accrue from the health and social care levy, in the context of its wider approach to taxation, borrowing and the economy. As we have heard throughout the day in Parliament, there is widespread concern that the Government’s plans do not add up and that their lack of transparency is making matters worse. Our new clause makes clear to Ministers that this must change.
Steve Brine
I was not planning on speaking, but there are a couple of points that I would like to put on record, as a former Health Minister. I will not revisit the debate on the leadership campaign in the summer, or support new clause 1. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) setting out his argument, and I have some sympathy with some of it, as he probably gathered from some of my interventions earlier.
I was happy to support the Second Reading of this repeal Bill—not that we had a Division on it. The Bill was well trailed throughout the ridiculously long leadership campaign in the summer; I do not think that that was the issue that spooked the markets at the time of the fiscal event a couple of weeks ago.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) said so eloquently on Second Reading, this is probably the most important debate that we could be having; I am miffed that the House of Commons is so quiet. It is about funding the British public’s No. 1 priority: the national health service. It was about that when we passed legislation on the levy, and it is about it now that we are repealing it. The issues have not gone away. I will listen carefully when the case for new clause 2 is outlined, but new clause 1 looks down the wrong end of the telescope. My hon. Friend cited the Office for Budget Responsibility’s projection that NHS funding will, in coming years, go from about 10.3% to 17.5% of GDP. Those are eye-watering figures. I have to say, as a former Minister for public health, primary care and prevention, that we cannot simply carry on that curve.
I want to put on record my points on three or four of the big challenges that the health service faces. If the Government let ideology get in the way of facing down those challenges, future generations—and Governments, whether Conservative or Labour—will pay the price. Take obesity. UK-wide, the NHS costs attributed to being overweight and obesity are projected to reach £9.7 billion by 2050. When I was in the Department of Health, we wrote the child obesity strategy. It is fair to say that the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), did not like a lot of it when he was running for the leadership of our party. In fact, I think he referred to the sugar tax as a sin tax, but—let the sinner repent—he came round to it. Now I hear rumours that it is for the bin.
I hear rumours that many other measures, including those around price promotion—"buy one, get one free”, as it is colloquially known—are also potentially for the bin, because we do not want to be seen as a nanny state. This from the state that recently passed a law making it illegal to leave the house without good reason. Sometimes, the state does things in the interests of the population that it serves, and there is no shame in that. If we do not tackle the obesity challenge, it will have not only a big financial impact on the NHS, which we are talking about how to fund, but a big social impact.
That takes me to my second point, which is on cancer. Around four in 10 cancers today are preventable. Smoking causes at least 15 different types of cancer. It is the biggest cause of cancer in the world today. Earlier, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) mentioned the smoking cessation plan, which I published when I was in office, and subsequently updated. We are still waiting for its revision. Press reports say that it is to be dropped as well. I gently suggest that that would be a massive own goal for our Government, and for the NHS, which we argue about how to fund.
Alex Cunningham
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. I think that he will agree that the savings that could be made in the longer term by implementing an effective tobacco control plan are absolutely massive; both the Department of Health and Social Care and the Treasury could derive tremendous benefits from it very quickly, if they act properly.
Steve Brine
Without question. We had some success with our tobacco control plan, but progress has stalled. We cannot ignore the pandemic, as the Opposition Front Benchers sometimes try to, and I understand that it disrupted the smoke-free England plans, but we need to get back to it, for social reasons, and for economic reasons relating to the health service that we seek to fund.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members from across the House have heard of the “Be Clear on Cancer” campaign, and of the “Touch, Look, Check” message encouraging women to check their breasts. I lost my mother to breast cancer; it destroyed much of my family. I brought a ten-minute rule Bill on the subject to the House earlier this year. Breast Cancer Now tells me that it thinks that there are 12,000 undiagnosed breast cancers in this country today. One does not need to be a genius, a former Health Minister or a breast surgeon to understand what that could mean: undiagnosed breast cancers move beyond stage 1, into 2 and 3, when they are untreatable. That is what happened to my mother, and I do not want it to happen to others. If the nanny state means implementing “Be Clear on Cancer” campaigns to help people avoid cancer, I am a nanny state-ist.
David Rutley
My hon. Friend makes an important point about raising awareness, particularly on public health, and I support the points that he makes, but does he agree that, at this time of real challenge, it is also important to drive public awareness of how to use energy more efficiently, in order to help people with their fuel bills?
Steve Brine
I know why Dame Rosie is smiling: she thinks that I have possibly attempted to fit my Second Reading speech into this response to new clause 1. If I go down the road of energy policy, I may test her patience. All I would say to my hon. Friend is that, if the energy price guarantee was a price cap, and people could not pay more than the amount at which the cap was set, there would be some argument for not having a public campaign advising people on their energy use. It is not a cap; it is an energy price guarantee. If people use more energy, they will pay for more energy. It therefore seems logical to me, on lots of levels, to help people save energy—but what do I know?
I was just coming to diabetes. The NHS spends about £10 billion a year—that was about 10% of its budget, when I was in the Department—on diabetes care. That is a phenomenal amount of money, yet type 2 diabetes is preventable and, as we have heard from Members, people can turn it around. Why would we not want to encourage people to manage their weight better, when weight is one of the big drivers of diabetes?
Finally, stoke is a big killer in this country. It costs the NHS billions. During conference recess, I visited a group in my constituency called Say Aphasia—I figured it was a better use of my time. I met a group of 15 men who had had strokes. One was two years younger than me. They had severe communication difficulties. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), a former public health Minister, by the Front Bench. She knows what I am going to say. Why would we not want to help the NHS prevent stroke through a proper salt reduction strategy? Given my surname, when I tried to suggest one to the Department, it caused some amusement among officials, but I think it is the right thing to do. If we cannot prevent stroke, I will meet a lot more people like those I met in the Say Aphasia group last week. Their ongoing cost to the NHS is significant.
In conclusion, the point I am trying to make, and maybe I am not making it very well, is that, if we do not believe in prevention—and in my heart I believe that those on the Front Bench do believe in prevention—the costs of the NHS predicted in the OBR book are going to look quite conservative. I think I am right in saying that those projections include this levy being in place, not repealed—
Steve Brine
And corporation tax, as my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position. If we believe in prevention—and, as I say, I believe that those on the Front Bench do—we need to have the courage to act on that. That will mean doing unpopular things, but sometimes we have to do unpopular things to do the right things, and that means preventing some of the major killers and some of the major causes of ill health that I have mentioned. If we do not do that, the NHS will continue to cost unsustainable amounts of money and it will become unsustainable. There endeth the lesson of Dr Brine.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I want to focus my remarks on my new clause 2. I thank the 25 right hon. and hon. Members who added their signature to mine on the amendment paper, and I am pleased that it has support from Plaid Cymru, Alba, Labour, Green, and Social Democratic and Labour party MPs.
The Conservative party was wrong to introduce the health and social care levy, so it is right that it is being scrapped, but it is wrong that the Government are imposing a package of unfunded tax cuts, which have created financial panic and led to interest rates shooting up and millions of people fearing how they will keep their home. The package has created a Tory crisis made in Downing Street, but being paid for by working people.
As I say, I welcome the scrapping of the levy, but of course health and social care still need the extra funding that it would have raised. We only have to look at today’s news about how the number of social care workers has fallen for the first time in a decade to see just how broken our care system is, and rising waiting lists and soaring ambulance waiting times show that the NHS is in dire need of a funding boost. So my new clause 2 would require the Chancellor, in addition to scrapping the levy, to look at different taxes to raise the income that would have been raised by the levy. Specifically, it calls on the Chancellor to look into the iniquity of tax rates on wealth being lower than the taxes paid on income from work.
We are, I am afraid, one of the most unequal countries in Europe when it comes to income distribution, but it is even worse when we look at wealth. The richest 1% hold almost a quarter of UK wealth, so we need a full and wide debate in our country about wealth taxes. I have been calling for a wealth tax—for example, a one-off wealth tax of 10% on wealth over £5 million, which could raise £100 billion and provide an emergency wealth fund to help get us through this crisis—but today, with new clause 2, I want to concentrate not on the taxing of wealth itself, but on taxes on income deriving from wealth.
We have a scandalous situation in our society in which income derived from wealth is taxed below income derived from work. If someone is lucky enough to be able to live off share dividend payouts, they will pay less in tax than someone who earns exactly the same amount by getting up each and every day and going out to work. Likewise, capital gains tax, which is paid on profits when selling assets such as a second home, is paid at rates below income tax rates. How on earth can that ever be justified, and how can it be justified when the Government are plotting—without any democratic mandate, I would add—to cut benefits and public services across society?
In fact, there is huge potential for increasing tax revenues by simply ending the significant tax discounts that go to income from wealth over income from work. How much would be raised by doing this? Ending the lower rates paid on capital gains and share dividends, and removing the related exemptions on those taxes, would raise around £24 billion per year. That is a lot more—nearly double—than the amount from the national insurance tax hike on working people, which would have raised around £12 billion to £13 billion. The funds that my proposal would raise could be a big down payment on the investment that we need to ensure our social care system delivers for everyone, and it could make a big difference in addressing the crisis in our health service.
For those on the Conservative Benches who may be appalled by this idea or this moderate proposal, I want to point out that the former Chancellor—not the last one, but the one before, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak)—commissioned a review of capital gains tax, and that review recommended slashing the annual allowance and aligning capital gains tax rates more closely with income tax, in a move that could raise billions of pounds for the Exchequer. On this, Margaret Thatcher, even, had an interesting view. Under Thatcher’s premiership, the same basic unfairness of lower taxes on capital gains was ended. It was back in 1988 that the then Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, said that
“there is little…difference between income and capital gains, and many people effectively have the option of choosing…which to receive. And…it is by no means clear why one should be taxed more heavily than the other.”—[Official Report, 15 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 1005.]
Since then, wealthy people living a low-tax lifestyle have been benefiting from even lower capital gains rates than over 30 years ago, so something has gone wrong and it is now time to put that right. We need solutions to deal with this economic crisis in a socially just way, not through austerity, not through benefits cuts and not through public service cuts. Social justice means putting tax justice at the heart of our economy. We should start by ensuring that those who live off their wealth pay at least the same level of tax as those who live off their own work.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I disagree with new clause 2 and new clause 1. I welcome very much the legislation. One of the objectionable features of the original proposal was hypothecation, because I do not think it is possible to identify a single tax that just happens to meet the costs of a particular service, let alone a tax that would then have revenue growth at the right pace to take care of the needs of that service. This one was particularly misleading. There was no way that the amount of tax to be levied got anywhere near paying the full costs of social care. It was misleading to make people feel that social care might be as cheap as this particular tax, although the tax itself was burdensome on all those who go to work.
There are still strong elements of hypothecation in new clause 2, which I would equally object to. Again, we should not mislead people into believing there is a simple, relatively low tax that takes care of a huge problem—social care. Indeed, when the Government compounded the difficulty by saying that in the first instance the tax would be mainly used for the health service, and by some magic that would drop away and it would go to social care, it all became incredible to me. That is why I did not like the idea in the first place. It is very good news that we are sorting it out.
The challenge of new clauses 1 and 2 is a perfectly fair one, and I think the answer is straightforward. Social care does need more money to go into it, and it will need progressively more. If we fund our social care better and expand it, it will release some of the pressures on the NHS. There are some people who could vacate a bed quite safely and get better social care if that were available, so this is worthwhile expenditure from that point of view as well. Above all, it is worthwhile expenditure because people deserve better care and better treatment and that should be funded out of general taxation.
The Government are right now to abolish the hypothecated specialist tax, to give up the idea that there is a single, relatively low tax that solves all the problems, and to accept that social care and NHS provision together is a major claim on the general taxation of the country. If the general taxation of the country does not reach total spending—it does not seem to at the moment—it is also a claim on borrowing.
On that last point, we should remember that for the previous two years the Office for Budget Responsibility grossly underestimated the revenues that came into our economy, and we borrowed considerably less than it was forecasting. It may not be so wildly wrong this year, when it looks perhaps as if its borrowing forecast is a bit on the low side, but we must remember that the way to pay for these services is to grow the revenue. That was what we were doing last year and the year before, and that is what we must do next year, to take care of the need to spend more on the NHS and social care.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to support new clauses 1 and 2, and I suspect we will soon vote on new clause 1. Let us be clear: the economic issues we are now facing—rising interest rates for homeowners, and a crashing of confidence in the British economy—are partly because the Government will not produce proper, transparent plans about how they are managing tax and spend.
New clause 1 would force the Government to publish proper documentation on how they will manage that expenditure. We cannot scrimp and save any more on social care, and while it is right to reverse this tax, which was pernicious and hurt the poorest the most, the Government’s failure to outline how they will raise the revenue and properly spend it will cause more chaos and more lack of confidence in the Government. It will contribute to the ongoing crisis in interest rates, and it will end up hurting hard-working people in this country again. Although the reversal of this tax is welcome, without proper analysis the danger is that people in this country will still pay, but they will be paying not through tax to the Government, but through pernicious interest rate rises to lenders and banks. That would be worse than the current situation.
Social care needs to be funded. Brighton and Hove City Council spends £154 million a year on adult social care. That is care for older and disabled people—social care in all its forms. It only raises £160 million through council tax and the precept, so it has only £10 million discretionary funding, although of course it gets grants for schools and other non-discretionary funds. That is the same up and down the country. It is no good just finding Treasury money to support an expanding need for social care; it is a scandal that any penny of council tax is going on adult social care at all. No voter I ever speak to thinks it is appropriate for council tax to be spent on adult social care. Council tax should be for council services, universal services, and ensuring that our local areas are better, more prosperous and thriving. Every person I speak to thinks that social care should be centrally financed. Yes, councils should deliver it, just as they do with education and other services, but the grant must be fully funded by the Government. That the Government have not outlined how they will do that, or have even a long-term plan to do that, continues the pressure and burden on councils and is wrong.
Not only is it wrong, but there is another way of doing it. That is why new clause 2 is so important. It starts to set out the alternatives, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) stated that we should be looking at taxing income from wealth. It is a scandal that generations after generations have squirreled away wealth, hiding it away like Monopoly money on a Monopoly board, and they are then able to generate money from doing almost diddly squat. That is wrong when hard-working people are toiling and paying a higher rate.
There are other ways that the tax could be raised, such as abolishing the upper earnings limit and the scandal of people who earn more than £50,000 paying only 3.25%—less once the levy is abolished—on national insurance. That rich people pay less national insurance as a percentage of income than poorer people is a national scandal. Rather than a progressive tax, it is an innately regressive tax. The poorer someone is, the more they pay; the richer they are, the less they pay as a percentage. If that was abolished and we had a flat tax for everyone, that would have raised £10 billion more than this failed tax U-turn. The Government would have been able to fund all they wanted. It would have been fair, and it would not have hit poorer people. There were many alternatives and the Government did not pursue any of them.
Last week I visited my local A&E at Royal Sussex County Hospital. Fantastic nurses and doctors were working their socks off, and the management were trying to cope with reducing resources. What did I see? Tens of people in beds in corridors, and more than 30 people in waiting chairs, waiting not to be treated in A&E but to be moved on to adult social care or other wards in the hospital. One person had waited for 23 hours, and another who had been discharged the day before had been waiting in A&E for four days. Why is that? It is because our social care system is failing. People are leaving in droves because there are no national terms and conditions and no decent pay. It is a disgrace that care workers earn less than £10 an hour in Brighton and across the UK. They are on poverty wages yet they do such important work.
We need a proper plan for how social care will be paid for. It is no good for the Government to remove this pernicious tax and then come forward with no plans, no ideas, no nothing. This Government have run out of ideas, and Conservative Members have run out of a future for this country. All they are in now is a quick “grab as much as they can” in the next two years, before they lose the election. It is not right for this country. We need them to move aside because Labour has the ideas. Labour has the plan for adult social care, and for everything.
Richard Fuller
New clause 1 was tabled by the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), and he raised two specific points. One was on the direct cost that HMRC will incur as a result of this Bill, and he is right; there will be some additional costs. It costs to make these changes, and there will also be costs in future months from additional calls that may come into HMRC. Those numbers have not yet been fully quantified, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman with those costs when we have them. I do not think this was the intent of his question, but on the changes to dividend tax rates, the 1.25% cut will be implemented from April 2023 and is not taking place this year.
Overall funding for health and social care services will be maintained at the same level as if the levy was in place, and we will do that without the tax increase. The Chancellor and the Government are committed to fiscal sustainability, ensuring that debt to GDP falls over the medium term, and the Chancellor will set out further details in his medium-term fiscal plan on 31 October. Strong growth and sustainable public finances go hand in hand, and maintaining fiscal discipline over the medium term will provide the confidence and stability to underpin long-run growth. In turn, faster growth can promote confidence in the UK economy and lead to higher tax revenues without the need to raise levels of taxation. That broader context of the medium-term fiscal plan in the round is the right way to assess these changes, not via the specific measures in new clause 1. I therefore urge the House to reject the new clause.
I will make a point to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who rightly spoke about the importance of prevention. To reassure him, the Department’s spending review settlement provided £2.3 billion over the spending period to transform diagnostic services and funding to enable local authorities to invest further in prevention through the public health grant.
I turn to new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and supported by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), who I was interested to hear advocating flat taxes—I look forward to further discussions with him about the merits of flat tax rates. There are key differences between the tax bases of earned income, capital gains and unearned income such as dividends. For example, employers also pay national insurance contributions on employment earnings, which broadens the base of revenue from national insurance contributions across employers, employees and the self-employed. In practice, if the taxation of dividends and capital gains were aligned with the taxation of earnings, we could expect to raise less than the levy was forecast to do due to the size of the tax bases and the significant behavioural responses by both tax bases. One of the key points that the hon. Member for Leeds East misses is such behavioural changes when we seek to change certain taxes in a significant way.
Unlike the Opposition, the Government are committed to lowering taxes, not raising them. We have already committed to reversing the 1.25 percentage point increase in dividend tax from April 2023, as I said, to drive growth and investment, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will publish the medium-term fiscal plan on 31 October. I therefore urge the House to reject new clause 2. With thanks to those hon. Members for tabling their new clauses, I hope that they are satisfied with my explanations and that the hon. Member for Ealing North will not press his new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I will not detain the House any longer than I need to; I just want to put on record my concerns for those who are on £9 an hour and those who are also what I refer to as the working poor. While I welcome where we are, I will steal the phrase of a well-known supermarket: “Every Little Helps”. Tonight’s bit will help and it will go a long way. However, we need to do much more than this little measure. When it comes to moving forward, for the working poor—those across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—this repeal Bill is necessary at this time, and I am glad it is here. Investment in families is also necessary, especially the working poor, who were doing fine two years ago and are not doing as fine now. I just wanted to make those pithy comments, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 7 and 8 together.
Ordered,
Standards
That Laura Farris be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Sir Charles Walker be added.
Privileges
That Laura Farris be discharged from the Committee of Privileges and Sir Charles Walker be added.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Dental Training College: East Anglia
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
It would be all too easy to focus any speech on dentistry on a call for the renegotiation of the NHS—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Could colleagues leave quietly? Otherwise we will not be able to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
Jerome Mayhew
As I was saying, it would be all too easy to focus any speech on dentistry on a call for the renegotiation of the NHS dental contract. Every Member of Parliament will know from their postbag the suffering that ordinary people are experiencing every day because they are simply unable to see a dentist.
The pandemic has caused the loss of 40 million dental appointments—more than an entire year’s worth of standard pre-covid treatment—but covid is not the cause of our problems. Ever since Labour imposed its NHS dental contract on the profession back in 2006, trouble has been brewing. Dentists have been voting with their feet, moving in their thousands away from NHS treatment into private work.
That trend has only accelerated through covid. Between the start of the pandemic and May 2022, 3,000 dentists have stopped doing any NHS work. Three quarters of those who are left say that they are likely to reduce their coverage further over the next year, so we simply cannot ignore the problem any longer. The pain and suffering are too great. Labour may have created this bad system, which fails to pay for the cost of complex work, but our job is to fix it, and the sooner the better.
The purpose of this debate, however, is not to moan about the state of NHS dental provision, but to put forward a positive case for solving the long-term problems in Norfolk and the east. Put simply, we have a desperate shortage of dentists of any description. Too few dentists and too few dental technicians—whether NHS or private—are choosing to work in East Anglia.
Nationally, the General Dental Council says that we have more dentists than ever before, with a national average of 43 for every 100,000 of the population, but in Norfolk and Waveney, that figure is just 38. That is the fifth lowest ratio of the 106 clinical commissioning groups around the country. Dental practices are crying out for new staff, but they simply cannot get them.
In the town of Fakenham in my constituency, I lobbied successfully for the NHS to award a brand-new NHS dental contract to increase local NHS provision. That was the Government being prepared to pour new money into increasing NHS provision. However, when that contract was advertised, not a single company bid for the work. There simply was not the staff to supply the need.
That is not just an NHS issue. In the same town, a private dental practice has been advertising for a private dentist for two years, but without success. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), there is a dentist in Sheringham who operates practices both in London and Norfolk. He has not had a newly qualified dentist come to work in his Sheringham practice for 10 years. Job vacancies in London are snapped up, but he simply cannot get them to take the jobs in Norfolk.
Why can we not produce dentists in East Anglia? The answer is that there is nowhere for them to train. If someone who lives in East Anglia wants to become a dentist, the nearest place they can train is Birmingham or London. None of the 10 training facilities around England is in the east of England.
That has to change. We know from our experience with the University of East Anglia that graduates tend to stay and build their lives close to where they have studied. Each year, the UEA does a survey of its graduates to see where they go to accept their first employment. If we look at that survey for doctors coming through the medical school of the University of East Anglia, we see that more than 40% end up taking jobs locally every year. That is great for us in relation to doctors and particularly for the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, which is based in Norwich. Unfortunately, however, the same problem is true in dentistry.
Let us look at the number of dentists working near existing dental training schools. As I said, Norfolk has 38 dentists per 100,000 of the population. Devon is a broadly similar county—it is largely rural, with coastal communities and one major conurbation, Plymouth—but there is a big difference: Plymouth has a dental school, which was installed in 2005, and Devon’s ratio of dentists per 100,000 of the population is not 38, but 49.6. If we look at the north-east, where there is a school in Newcastle, we see that its ratio of dentists to the general public is 56 per 100,000 of the population. In Cheshire and Merseyside, there is a school in Liverpool, so the whole area benefits from 58 dentists per 100,000 of the population. We can see from the hard data that people tend to settle down where they have trained.
So if that is the data, surely the solution to East Anglia’s problems is obvious: first, we need to open a dental school in East Anglia. I raised that need directly with the University of East Anglia some months ago and I have been enormously encouraged and impressed by their response, strongly supported by the NNUH, the region’s training hospital. The University of East Anglia has developed an innovative solution to our dental training problems that would minimise cost and get students out into the workplace from the start of their training, helping with capacity in the short term and dealing with the training deficit in the long run.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
As a Suffolk MP, I welcome the idea of an East Anglian training centre. I also want the University of Suffolk to play a role. It recently outlined its plans for a Suffolk centre for dental development. Does my hon. Friend agree that, actually, a dental training college in Norwich could work hand in glove with the new centre in Ipswich to make sure that people are trained locally but, when needed, they are pooled to provide services on the NHS for our constituents?
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree entirely. There can be collaboration between the university in Norwich and the University of Suffolk, which is based in Ipswich. People can start training in Norwich and, once they are qualified, have career and professional development taken care of by the proposed unit in Ipswich. I will come on to that in further detail.
To return to the plans of the University of East Anglia, its idea is that students would work in the community for at least one day a week throughout their five-year training course. In that way, dental students will increase the capacity of associated NHS practices right from the get-go. Too often, it is suggested that a dental training school is too long term to solve the problems now. In a sense, it is, of course, but under this plan, we would have increased capacity right from the first year of the students’ five-year course.
There are more benefits, too: students would not only increase the capacity, but develop employment relationships locally, increasing their stickiness, and provide training income to stretched NHS practices. For that reason, MPs from North Norfolk, North West Norfolk, Mid Norfolk, South Norfolk and Norwich North all support the proposal. If there were an East Norfolk constituency, I am sure that that Member would support it as well.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I speak as an MP with a foot in both camps: I am a Suffolk MP but I also represent the Norfolk and Waveney integrated care system area. Does my hon. Friend agree, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) said, that it is very important that the two proposals being put together by the University of Suffolk and the University of East Anglia are collaborative and worked on together, so that they come through with a solution for the whole of East Anglia?
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The only phrase that I would pick him up on is that he has “a foot in both camps”. I do not think there should be two camps. This is an East Anglian solution, whereby the proposals are complementary and, in time, they should both be implemented.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for raising this issue and highlighting the huge pressures that the dental service in his area and mine is experiencing on the ground. Many of our constituents are struggling and this proposal would not only make our region a leader in the science and technology of dentistry, but help to meet that demand and need on the ground. With new housing, the pressure will only get more acute in the next few years.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is entirely right. There is a further point to be made about the collaboration between the University of East Anglia and the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, because they also have the Norwich research park co-located. I am thinking particularly of the Quadram Institute, the sole focus of which is world-leading research on the gut microbiota. I cannot pretend to know exactly what the gut microbiota are, but I know that they start with the mouth. There is huge capacity for proper, hard research in the area, and it could be assisted by a dental training school in Norwich. That is the first solution.
The second solution, which is also needed, is for the dental school in Norwich to complement the University of Suffolk’s plans to build a centre for dental development in Ipswich to support further career development in the region, attracting and retaining newly qualified dentists. My hon. Friends the Members for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) and others have all pushed for that.
The truth is that we need both to attract qualified dentists in the short term and to find a long-term solution to the wider training problem. It may be that an assessment is made nationally that there is no need for additional dental training seats, but people are human. We have to look beyond the empirical analysis and recognise that training needs to be offered in a location of real shortage. That location is East Anglia, and Norfolk in particular.
As a Conservative, I believe that people should have power over their own lives and that communities should not be dictated to by national Government. Rather, they should be empowered to come up with their own solutions to their local needs. We know what the problem is, and we have a solution to fix it locally; we just need the Government to trust the people to let us get on and do it.
We simply need more dentists and dental technicians in East Anglia. We recognise that budgets are tight and that timings may have to be stretched. We accept that short-term fixes are sometimes more powerful arguments in politics than long-term solutions. We simply ask the Minister to agree to meet the University of East Anglia team to learn at first hand how we can make East Anglian dentistry better, and to be inspired by their practical vision.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I cannot quite tell whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to contribute.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I will contribute very quickly, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you will give me the opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) has set out a great vision of a future in which East Anglia, Norfolk and Suffolk have high-quality dentistry schools. That is great, but we need a bridge to get to that future, because two dentistry schools will take some time to set up. Does he agree that we need to look at other strands to address the crisis in NHS dentistry in East Anglia, including recruitment and retention in the short term, making it easier for people from overseas to come and work in local dentistry; contract reform, which I think my hon. Friend referred to; a fair, long-term funding settlement; a focus on prevention; and improved local accountability through the fledgling integrated care systems?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Perhaps I am confused, but I thought that the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) had finished. [Interruption.] Ah, so now he is intervening on the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). That is absolutely fine.
Jerome Mayhew
Thank you for that clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Does my hon. Friend agree that all those aspects are very important, but that perhaps there is another proposed solution that he has not mentioned? As we have learned today, there are inducement payments for teachers in special areas that are struggling to recruit. Perhaps we could apply the same approach to dentists in special areas that are struggling to recruit.
Peter Aldous
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and apologise for hijacking his debate. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. This is a multifaceted challenge; there is no one solution and no one golden bullet. We need to address all the points, and he is right to raise that one.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
As a former Minister for life science and for science and research, I rise very briefly to highlight the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) made about the microbiome and the mouth—the buccal cavity—as a primary diagnostic for our understanding of the role of the biome and of gut flora and fauna, not only in good health but in diseases such as cancer. As a diagnostic tool, it could make our region a leader in the diagnostics of the digestive system and the gut biome, which would have a whole bunch of other important secondary health benefits. For that reason, I commend my hon. Friend’s case to Ministers on the Front Bench.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Will Quince)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) on securing this debate on the potential merits of establishing a dental training college in East Anglia. It is clear that he has support from his neighbouring MPs—I know that one of them cannot be here this evening, but very much supports this endeavour—and from colleagues further afield and across East Anglia. I also thank him for raising the issue of access to dentistry in rural and coastal areas, particularly the challenges of seeing a dentist in Norfolk.
As the new Minister for dentistry, I understand that areas across our country, as my hon. Friend has highlighted, have faced difficulties with recruitment and retention, including in his constituency of Broadland and in the east of England more widely. Those challenges have a significant impact on the provision of NHS dentistry and on patients’ ability to receive NHS care. My hon. Friend is right that we cannot ignore the problem, which I can assure him is a priority for me and for the Secretary of State. I hope that it will not have escaped my hon. Friend’s notice that dentists are a key element of the Secretary of State’s ABCD approach and of “Our plan for patients”.
I am aware that my hon. Friend, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), attended meetings with my predecessor, and I think even with my predecessor’s predecessor, to discuss the construction of a dental school in Norfolk. It is a testament to the character of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland that he brought the issue to my attention just days after my appointment as a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care. If I may say so, his constituents are fortunate to have such a passionate and persistent advocate in their corner.
My hon. Friend set out in his speech to make a positive case for doing something about a long-term problem, and I think everyone in the Chamber this evening will agree that he has done so. He makes the case for a new dental school in Norfolk—a case that I know has the backing of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, who cannot be here this evening. On the face of it, it is a compelling case and is worth further exploration.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland knows me well enough to know that I am not someone who likes saying no to parliamentary colleagues, although sadly that is a responsibility that all too often comes with the job. On this occasion, it is a no, but it is “No for now, and let’s very much keep talking.” Let me explain why.
Establishing a new dental school takes several years and would not influence service provision in the short term, as my hon. Friend rightly identified. Notwithstanding the strong case that he makes, it also would not guarantee the ongoing sustained retention of dentists or support staff in the area. Our focus is not just on training more dentists, important as that is, but on the better use of the full dental team and the progression and retention of all dental care professionals in the NHS. There is, of course, an argument about the medium to long term, which is why I suggest that we keep talking, and of course I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend, as he requests, to further discuss his ideas and plans.
My hon. Friends the Members for Broadland, for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) all mentioned centres for dental development, the alternative training model identified by Health Education England in its 2021 “Advancing Dental Care” review report—that is a mouthful! The centres for dental development model would specifically benefit localities in which there is a shortage in provision and there are no nearby dental schools—as is the case in East Anglia, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland rightly pointed out.
The premise is that the centres would build on any existing dental infrastructure in the area, bringing together training and the resultant provision of NHS treatment to patients in a co-ordinated way. Things like postgraduate training opportunities are more likely to be compatible than early undergraduate placements, as they would increase access to the more complex and specialist care that we know is often most lacking in certain areas of the country, otherwise known as dental deserts. This would work towards the aim, specified in the “Advancing Dental Care” report, to produce the skilled “multi-professional oral healthcare workforce” that could best support patient and population needs within the NHS. A further advantage of the centres for dental development model is that they would be tailored to suit the local workforce requirements, in addition to the education and training needs of the area, contributing to stronger, multi-disciplinary dental teams and local area workforce retention.
Given that the centres would focus on postgraduate training or the later stages of undergraduate training, they could provide support in transitions from undergraduate to dental foundation training and more specialised training beyond those, all of which involve—as my hon. Friend mentioned—important decision-making moments in terms of career development and where dentists are likely to base their careers and practices. We believe that a broader range of placements across the country and in different clinical environments would enhance the student experience. The centres could offer a constructive alternative to dental schools, while acknowledging and addressing recruitment, retention and training gaps. I am sure my hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that Health Education England has now moved into its four-year implementation stage through its dental education reform programme—another mouthful!—following the “Advancing Dental Care” report and its recommendations.
My hon. Friend rightly raised the subject of collaboration. With regard to establishing a centre for dental development in East Anglia—this has been mentioned by my hon. Friend and others—the University of Suffolk and the NHS Suffolk and North East Essex integrated care board have announced plans for a centre in Ipswich. I am informed—this also covers my area, so I have an interest in it as well—that the initial plans include proposals to offer postgraduate educational opportunities as well as wider training opportunities for newly qualified dentists, alongside the training of the dental therapists, hygienists and dental technicians who form a vital part of the dental workforce. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney and for Ipswich for the work that they have done in pushing so strongly for that development, along with the integrated care board, which is a trail-blazer in this regard. It would be wrong, at this juncture, for me not also to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill). She has pushed strongly for this as well, and, moreover, is—dare I say—a much-missed Minister at the Department of Health and Social Care. She has a passion for dentistry, and, within the Department, she really put it on the map. That is a legacy that I intend to continue.
I strongly encourage my hon. Friend to meet the NHS and HEE regional teams for his areas, as centres for dental development are very much a local solution, tailored to the existing infrastructure and needs of an area. I, and those in my office, would be delighted to help facilitate such a meeting.
I have mentioned integrated care systems and integrated care boards. As we make the transition to integrated care systems—this point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney—commissioning roles for dentistry will be delegated. This will ensure that dentistry decisions are considered at a local level, and that, for example, local workforce as well as local population health requirements are taken into account. I therefore encourage my hon. Friend to meet the integrated care board—I am sure he has already done so, but I think an ongoing dialogue would make sense—to discuss its plans further, and to talk about how they will affect Broadland and the rest of East Anglia.
My hon. Friend touched on recruitment and retention, which I know is a particular issue in his constituency and more broadly. I have referred to the changes that we have made nationally through system reform, but NHS England in the East of England region has been working closely with the organisations that train dentists to improve the recruitment and retention of NHS dentists in East Anglia, and will continue to help those training organisations to develop the dental workforce. I am pleased to say that, in 2021-22, there was an increase of 539 dentists performing NHS dentistry compared with the previous year. In the East of England, there was a 3.5% increase, with an additional 105 dentists. However, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that is not enough: we need more dentists, and we need more dentists on NHS contracts.
More broadly, I know that my hon. Friend will want to know what improvements are being made now which will improve access to dentistry for his constituents. He rightly focused on the medium to long term, but I know from my postbag that the pressing concern is often the here and now. We plan for the dental system improvements announced on 19 July as part of “Our plan for patients” to begin to take effect by the end of this year, and some of the improvements in the package have already taken effect and are beginning to bear fruit. The Secretary of State and I are looking at a number of further measures that we can take to aid recruitment and retention—I know that that is one of the key concerns of my hon. Friend and others, and I think my hon. Friend touched on one of the ideas that we are considering—and, in turn, improve access for constituents. As I have said, this is a priority for me, and I hope to share more details with my hon. Friend and the House in due course.
I am committed to playing my part to improve access to NHS dentistry, particularly for those most in need of dental care, and I know that recruitment and the dental workforce will play a pivotal role in that. I hope my hon. Friend has been reassured that action is being taken to address the challenges in recruitment and retention across the country, and particularly in his constituency. I look forward to working with him as we develop our ambitious plans, and I know he will continue to be a champion for his constituents and hold the Government’s metaphorical feet to the fire as we deliver the improvements in dentistry access that we all want to see.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Motor Fuel (Composition and Content) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lucy Frazer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Motor Fuel (Composition and Content) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins.
This draft statutory instrument will introduce E10 as standard petrol across Northern Ireland, while ensuring that the existing E5 grade remains available to those who need it. That will bring petrol grades in Northern Ireland into line with those in Great Britain, where E10 was introduced successfully in September 2021. We have completed the notification procedures required under the Northern Ireland protocol, meaning that an introduction in Northern Ireland is now possible.
E10 petrol contains up to 10% renewable ethanol, double the amount that can be blended into E5 petrol. The change is a crucial step in maximising the bad-fuel blending capacity in the UK fuel market and driving transport decarbonisation. It will also support the UK’s biofuel and agricultural sectors.
I will go through some aspects in a little more detail, starting with why E10 is needed. It will allow us to cut carbon emissions from cars, motorbikes and other petrol-powered equipment in use today simply by increasing the limit to which renewable fuel can be blended into standard petrol. Introducing E10 across the whole of the UK could cut transport carbon dioxide emissions by 750,000 tonnes a year, the equivalent of taking 350,000 cars off the road or all the cars in North Yorkshire. The measure is therefore one of the few available to us with an immediate impact, providing the basis for a step change in renewable fuel blending. E10 petrol is a proven fuel that has been introduced successfully in Great Britain and in many nations around the world, delivering carbon savings immediately.
The UK has a valuable bioethanol industry, which has already benefited from the increased demand created by the introduction of E10 in Great Britain. Following our policy announcement to introduce E10 across the UK, one large facility operator announced that it would recommence production. The domestic bioethanol industry supports high-skilled, green jobs, and improves our energy independence, delivering on a range of Government priorities such as growth and energy security. Such facilities also play a significant role in their local economy, employing hundreds of skilled workers directly and supporting thousands of jobs in the wider community. That community includes the agricultural sector, with locally grown feed wheat used to produce ethanol and by-products such as animal feed supplied to livestock farmers in place of soy imports.
To address the position on older cars, more than 95% of petrol-powered vehicles on the road are compatible with E10 petrol. That figure is increasing all the time. All new cars manufactured since 2011 are compatible with E10 petrol, and most cars and motorcycles manufactured since the late 1990s are approved by manufacturers to use E10. Some older vehicles, however, are not cleared to use E10. That is why the draft instrument includes provision to keep E5 petrol available in the higher-octane Super grade. The same set of derogations and exemptions that apply to the supply of E10 in Great Britain, in cases of supply issues or infrastructure constraints, will also apply in Northern Ireland.
We also launched a comprehensive campaign involving local radio, roadside posters, social media and information at forecourts. It informs motorists in Northern Ireland of the changes to petrol this autumn, subject to the approval of this draft instrument, and it directs vehicle owners to the gov.uk online compatibility checker to ensure that everyone is clear on the right fuel for their vehicle or equipment.
In conclusion, in proposing this draft statutory instrument, my Department has considered carefully a balance of interests. It recognises the need to maximise our efforts to decarbonise vehicles on the road today and to support our domestic renewable fuel industry, while maintaining access to a suitable petrol grade for all. Introducing E10 petrol in Northern Ireland this November strikes the right balance. I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I warmly welcome the Minister to her place.
Around a quarter of the UK’s carbon emissions originate from transport, and cars make up a significant proportion of that sector. The last Labour Government set up the renewable transport fuel obligation and introduced E5 petrol in the UK. That was groundbreaking in helping to lower emissions. We must now build on that good work. I am afraid to say that the Government’s measures in these regulations demonstrate a lack of ambition.
At present, E5 fuel in Northern Ireland contains up to 5% ethanol. The regulations will only require E10 petrol to contain at least 5.5% ethanol—a minor increase. The Government have previously stated that the figure is just a minimum, but that argument fails by its own logic. The explanatory memorandum states that the industry would not increase ethanol content to above 5% “without a legislative mandate”. That stands to reason. After all, no supplier would want to be left out in the cold. Following that same logic, what incentive is there for retailers to supply E10 petrol at anything above the 5.5% ethanol, something which the Government clearly view as welcome? I would be extremely grateful if the Minister addressed that particular point. Perhaps she could state the average ethanol content in E10 petrol in the rest of the UK, given that the measure has been in place for many months.
I want to touch on the sourcing of bioethanol. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the supply chain does not inadvertently lead to global environmental impacts? Last year, the Government stated that the use of imported bioethanol that could potentially contribute to deforestation was “minimal”. Would the Minister clarify just how minimal the figure is? What safeguards are being put in place to ensure that we do not inadvertently contribute to deforestation through increased demand for ethanol for E10 petrol?
From 2030, new petrol and diesel cars will no longer be sold within the UK. However, given the lifespan of new cars, reducing the environmental impact of petrol will be vital in fighting the climate crisis for many decades to come. As the Climate Change Committee noted, the net zero strategy baseline assumes that manufacturers continue to improve conventional vehicle efficiencies in line with previous regulations and that hybrids with a significant zero-emission range will make up a growing and substantial portion of the new car market, yet the Government’s intention is to require only nominal improvements. What assessment have the Government made of the CCC’s recommendation to incentivise efficiency improvements in conventional vehicles?
We will not oppose the statutory instrument. However, I sincerely hope that for the sake of our environment and our country the Minister will listen very carefully to calls to show far greater ambition in this area.
Lucy Frazer
I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green for his comments and kind words—[Interruption.] I thank the hon. Member for Slough for his comments and kind words at the beginning of his speech. He is absolutely right to say that vehicles on roads are responsible for a significant portion of our CO2 emissions. Transport is responsible for around 24% of carbon in the UK, and 90% of that comes from road emissions, so the hon. Gentleman made a very important point at the outset. He said that we were not ambitious enough, but I remind him that the biofuel supplied under the RTFO saved 5.24 million tonnes of CO2 in 2020—equivalent to taking 2.5 million vehicles off the road—and of course, that is just one aspect of our plan for decarbonisation. In this area, it is important to ensure that we maintain the right balance, as I said in my speech.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of issues that do not directly relate to the statutory instrument, but which are important and are being addressed by Government. He talked about deforestation and the supply chain, but he will know that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is looking closely at measures to ensure that we plant enough trees. He also talked about the impact on cars more broadly, but he will know that with our zero-emission vehicle mandate, we are phasing out fuel. He asked whether car manufacturers and suppliers will go above the 5.5% level; I would like to reassure him that the targets for the overall blending levels under the RTFO were increased in 2022, and we will continue to increase them until 2032. For all those reasons, and those I outlined at the beginning of the sitting, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lucy Frazer
We know that diesel manufacturers are producing it at higher than the 5.5% level. It is in their interest to do so in relation to the environment more broadly, and because we will expand the market. In the long run, those fuels will be cheaper for both consumers and suppliers.
Question put and agreed to.
Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Leo Docherty)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2022 (SI. 2022, No. 818).
The statutory instrument before us was laid before the House on Tuesday 19 July 2022 under the powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, also known as the sanctions Act. Sanctions are of course a key pillar of our foreign policy. It is essential that our sanctions regimes are maintained and updated appropriately so that we can respond at pace to the activities of malign actors around the world. We have recently shown the strength and utility of our sanctions in our response to Vladimir Putin’s outrageous invasion of Ukraine and Russia’s crimes against the Ukrainian people.
The legislative instrument that we are debating today updates all our sanctions regimes, including those we are required to implement due to our United Nations obligations, as well as our own autonomous UK regimes. The regulations ensure that cryptoasset businesses fall within the scope of financial sanctions reporting requirements, strengthening our ability to respond to emerging threats and evolving global standards. Specifically, the regulations require cryptoasset exchanges and custodian wallet providers to report to the Treasury in the event that they encounter any designated persons in the course of their business or if they are holding any frozen assets on behalf of customers who are designated.
Cryptoasset businesses are also required to report any suspected breaches of financial sanctions. The regulations include new powers for public authorities to share financial sanctions information with the Treasury. The change ensures that a wide range of persons and organisations, from regulators to local authorities, have a dedicated information-sharing gateway.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has given way. On cryptoassets, will he assure me that he or his Department will work closely with GCHQ on this? Without its help we will not know precisely what cryptoassets are being transferred by whom and to whom.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. We do of course have an intelligence-led approach to sanctions. The good thing about the regulations is that they will expedite the way we work in lockstep with Government agencies and the private sector.
Organisations will no longer have to rely on non-sanction specific gateways or on the Treasury’s powers to compel the release of information from partners. We expect that that will give organisations confidence to share information so that Government can better pursue breaches and uphold the integrity of UK sanctions. Those changes are possible thanks to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which amended the sanctions Act in March this year.
The regulations also make changes to our various sanctions regimes in order to update definitions and clarify intentions. Those amendments ensure that the definition of “designated person” is consistent across regulations. They include a correction of the reporting obligations relating to the transfer of funds to a ringfenced account. They clarify that within the Libya sanctions regime it is not a breach of sanctions to credit a frozen account with interest, and they specify that Treasury licences would be available for the purpose of satisfying prior obligations.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I have just been going through the explanatory memorandum. On page 4 it states:
“No consultation has been carried out on this instrument”,
but it goes on to say that there was an earlier consultation, as regards the memoranda to the amended regulations. Can the Minister tell us how wide that consultation was and what the response was?
Leo Docherty
That is a very good question. I will gladly write to the hon. Member with the granular breakdown of the scale and depth of the response to that earlier consultation.
Leo Docherty
I feel confident—my expectation is—that it was extensive to the degree that we did not need to do a second one. I look forward to writing to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent on that.
These measures also correct acronyms that were entered incorrectly into the initial regulations or were missing. The name of the African Union peacekeeping force in Somalia is also updated. The regulations will ensure that our sanctions continue to hold to account corrupt officials, abusers of human rights and malign actors across the world, and that our UN sanction regimes remain accurate.
To conclude, the amendments mean that our sanction regimes take account of the most modern financial services and prevent loopholes being exploited in the future. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I would like to thank the Minister for his comments on the measures we are debating. I want to apologise, because in a previous debate I suggested that they were not in effect. They are, of course, because of the affirmative procedure, but we are only just debating them today. Obviously, it has taken a number of months, which is a concern to me, but we will not seek to divide the Committee today. We support the steps the Government are taking to enhance our sanction regimes, in relation not just to the terrible acts of Russia in Ukraine, but to a number of the other countries that are listed in the regulations.
On the subject of Ukraine, we have all been shocked by the scenes yesterday of attacks on civilian infrastructure. I saw locations that I drove past just three and a half weeks ago that had been hit by Russian missiles. They were clearly civilian areas; these are clearly war crimes. It is utterly horrific for the people of Ukraine, and this is a serious escalation. I draw attention to my declaration of interest on that visit, which I took part in a few weeks ago with other Members from across the House.
I am pleased we are debating these measures, which will apply across the board in relation to human rights abuses and destabilising situations across the world, from Belarus to Syria, Venezuela and the western Balkans —an area I visited recently. I have seen and heard about the activities of those who seek to undermine peace, human rights, stability and democracy in that region.
Specifically on Ukraine, this is no time for complacency. In his desperation, Putin will become more erratic. Our resolve will be tested. We will continue to work constructively with the Government on all the measures we are taking against Russia, but where we think they should go further and broaden the UK sanctions regime, we will say so.
As we know, using cryptocurrencies to evade sanctions and move money around the world was already illegal under UK law. However, the changes outlined today are necessary for those evading sanctions, because users of cryptocurrencies and related services do not have to rely on regulated entities to make transactions. Although ostensibly they are treated no differently to any other type of asset for the purposes of an asset freeze, the nature of virtual currencies could make it more difficult to detect that a sanctioned party is involved in a prompt enough fashion for anything to be done about it. As I have said previously, it is crucial that we do not look just at the wording in the sanctions, because it is their implementation and application that will make the real difference in dealing with all those who are sanctioned under a range of regimes.
It is clear that the Kremlin’s tendrils of influence are far-reaching, and we must recognise that the use of digital currency is not just a means of expanding the wealth of a sanctioned oligarch or indeed a member of the state Duma who is voting through the illegal attempted annexation of Ukrainian territory. It is also a way for the Kremlin to impose its will beyond Russia’s borders and expand its malign influence into the fabric of economies, polities and societies around the world.
Through the use of crypto and other digital currencies, hostile regimes can inject capital into the democracies of the world for the purposes of swaying elections, emboldening political forces who continue to spout the lines of dictators like Putin. The US State Department recently revealed that Russia has covertly given at least $300 million to political parties, officials and politicians in more than two dozen countries since 2014 and plans to transfer hundreds of millions more, with the goal of exerting political influence and swaying elections. The document from the State Department details that Russia is paying for those in cash, cryptocurrency, electronic fund transfers and lavish gifts. They move the money through a wide range of institutions to shield the origins of the finances, through foundations, think-tanks, organised crime groups, political consultancies, shell companies and, of course, Russian state-owned enterprises.
After being asked if blockchain-based currencies could be used effectively to evade sanctions, Elizabeth Rosenberg, the US Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, was very clear. She said,
“Yes, Senator, that is possible.”
Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is a real authority in this area, said she had been worried about Russian elites leveraging cryptocurrencies ever since Putin’s regime invaded Ukraine in February. She said,
“We already knew that countries like North Korea had used crypto to skirt sanctions and launder…hundreds of millions of dollars. And Russia could easily be part of that.”
I come to a critical issue on which I would like to hear some answers from the Minister. That is the issue of so-called mixers or tumblers. Those terms refer to mechanisms that are used to jumble cryptocurrencies, holdings and transactions, making them even more undetectable.
An example is the group Tornado Cash, which is a mixing service that lets users make their Ethereum transactions untraceable, by obfuscating the origin of the transactions. The United States sanctioned that service in August, along with the Bitcoin mixer called Blender. The US Treasury is clear that those mixers had repeatedly failed to impose effective controls designed to stop criminals from laundering funds. It did something clearly and urgently about that.
I reviewed our sanctions list and currently neither Tornado nor Blender appears. I may have missed something. I would like to understand from the Minister whether those mixers and blenders are currently sanctioned, and if not, why not? Because the US Treasury has been very clear. It said on 8 August:
“Tornado Cash…has been used to launder more than $7 billion worth of virtual currency since its creation in 2019.”
It specifically referred to links to North Korea and the Lazarus Group, a state-sponsored hacking group, and to the use of Blender for similar transactions involving hundreds of millions of dollars. I fear that those mixers and blenders may have the ability to allow the cronies of Putin, who support his regime, to circumvent the sanctions we are debating today. I am concerned that it does not appear that we are taking action against those mechanisms.
I appreciate that the technology is evolving and emerging all the time but, if our closest ally has taken these measures, it seems odd that we do not appear to have done so. I am happy to be corrected if that is not the case. I hope the Minister can answer questions on that. What discussions are we having with our allies to ensure that we are at the cutting edge of methods to deal with those being sanctioned under all of these regimes, but particularly in relation to Russia and Ukraine, given the situation today, so that they are not able to evade them? I have raised the issue of evasion of sanctions a number of times in debates. I am concerned that these are wily characters and regimes who are attempting to find every single way around our measures and protections. We have got to ensure that we stand clearly against them.
Secondly, what discussions are the Minister and his colleagues having with the Treasury about conversations with the International Monetary Fund to ensure better regulation of cryptocurrencies, so that the risks around them are mitigated? We will debate the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill again shortly. I know that these matters will be of great interest to Members across the House, who want to see a toughening up of our regulation in this space. I put these proposals forward in a constructive spirit, and I hope the Minister will see it that way.
Thirdly, what further consideration has been given by the Government fully to implement the recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report, particularly on conversations with that Committee about the issue of illicit finance and cryptocurrencies? It made many recommendations but, unfortunately, the Government have dragged their heels on that. There is no reason to do that. The actions of Russia and other regimes are absolutely clear.
I have a few final remarks. We welcome the measures today that enable Government Departments and other agencies to share information and assist the Treasury and the office of financial sanctions implementation to discharge their functions, widening the definition of a relevant firm, including cryptoasset exchange providers. Those are prudent and necessary steps to take.
I thank the Minister and his colleague—the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who also covers sanctions—for their replies and detailed letters to me in answer to previous questions. I come back to the question of implementation. The Ministers have answered some very clear questions about the staffing and resourcing of both the sanctions unit in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the office of financial sanctions implementation. However, we hear from other parts of Government about further efficiency savings. Will the Minister confirm that the new roles in both of those bodies are safe and will not be quietly depleted? In fact, we need more of them, not less, at this critical time. I hope that he can reassure me on that point. We have to ensure that they, and other bodies, such as the National Crime Agency, have the resources to follow through on the implementation of the regulations.
Because we regularly debate the sanctions regime in this place, particularly in relation to Russia, I also wonder whether the Minister has anything further to say on proposals to designate United Russia as a terrorist entity, given the actions of those in that party and the actions of recent days. That proposal has certainly been put to us. Does he have any further thoughts on it?
In a letter sent to me after our last debate, the Minister’s colleague, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire, said in response to my questions about the sequestration and repurposing of assets that the Government were looking at
“what options there may be to do so and are working closely with HM Treasury to make progress.”
He also wrote:
“we are looking at what we can do in the long term to raise money for the reconstruction of Ukraine using Russian assets.”
That is a welcome statement, but we are keen to see that happen sooner rather than later. The issue was raised with me regularly on my recent visit to Kyiv, and was raised with me again by Ukrainian counterparts when I attended the Warsaw Security Forum in the past few days. I will make a declaration about that in due course.
Those issues are being raised by our Ukrainian friends and allies—and by many of our other allies. There will be huge costs associated both with supporting Ukraine in the way that we are—absolutely rightly—and with reconstruction. We must ensure that those we sanction in relation to the conflict pay the price, and ensure that our sanctions regime as it relates to all the other countries involved—we mentioned Belarus and other situations—is as robust as possible.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Hosie. I fully associate myself with the comments of Labour’s Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, on the importance of taking action on the sanctions regime.
I have a few simple questions for the Minister about the implementation of these sanctions. He will be aware that many of us have a massive interest in how, now that we have left the European Union, new regimes and forms of collaboration are enacted. As my Front-Bench colleague said, we want to see the regime work, and I hope that the Minister takes my questions in that spirit. However, there are questions, and I can see that Conservative Members also have concerns about how the measures will work.
Clearly, we previously relied on working across Europe on sanctions issues. We have talked before in this House about how assets are transferred across Europe, and how people whom we want to sanction work across different countries. Having left the EU provisions that enabled such sanctions to be enacted, it is right to introduce the regulations: they deal with a gap in our proposals on how to enact sanctions. However, the regulations are a unilateral piece of legislation. My first, very simple question for the Minister is whether he can confirm and reassure us that we will continue to get the information that we need from the European Union about those individuals to make sure that sanctions are effective? We can obviously make that commitment to information sharing ourselves. It would be helpful to hear about his conversations with the European Union and our European counterparts on this issue. It is obviously a very apposite issue at the moment when it comes to Russia and Belarus, particularly when there might not be as much of a united front as we may wish.
Secondly, and more prosaically, the regulations, as the Minister said, bring in a new power for public authorities to participate in the process. Will the Minister tell us a little more about that? In particular, the power is provisional. The regulations state that public authorities “may” disclose information. The number of public bodies that could disclose information is quite high: for example, any police officer could. Would he clarify whether that means, say, a police constable? Have police constables been given information about how they might be expected to operate under this piece of legislation? The regulations refer to
“any other person exercising functions of a public nature”.
Might we, as Members of Parliament, be required or expected to provide information under the legislation? Of course, most critically for all of us who want the sanctions to be effective—obviously colleagues on both sides of the House might have concerns about what information people might know—what happens if Members of Parliament, police constables or indeed any of these bodies do not co-operate?
As I said, the regulations say that they “may disclose information”, but they are not required to do so. Will he clarify what would happen if somebody did not disclose information? Within that environment, what monitoring will there will be of those who disclose information and, perhaps, those who refuse to do so, so that we can review how the sanctions are working? Again, it is one thing for us unilaterally to decide that we must have an operative sanction regime, but it is another thing if we do not actually know who is taking part in it and where there might be further blockages to it being effective.
The Minister talks about it being important to introduce the regulations because they would correct acronyms, for example, in legislation; there had been drafting errors—although I am pleased to see that they are not of the type that we saw in the Belgium legislation, where an entire duck soup recipe was added into legislation. But it does rather bring up one of the wider challenges, does it not, when it comes to translating EU legislation into UK law? There is so much that we were so dependent on to make our regimes effective that we have to be sure that it is done well.
Will the Minister update us on what has been happening in the three years since the legislation came in, in terms of the sanctions and the information gathering activity, when we have not had these powers? Given that we have a major piece of legislation being introduced to this House that will dispense with all forms of retained EU legislation, can he be confident that it will not affect our ability either to do that information sharing or to be able to effect these sanctions? Would he recognise that, if we are making drafting errors that require a statutory instrument to be introduced, there is a concern that any future legislation that covers translating into UK legislation does not also miss items?
A big bang approach, which is what we are going to see with this Brexit retained law legislation, may well bring up some of the problems that the sanctions legislation and this SI are trying to correct. Is he confident that there is not anything we will miss out once we have dealt with this SI? I very much hope this SI is will be effective, but I hope he will explain, in the spirit of understanding, how it will operate in person and what it might mean, not just for us as Members of Parliament, but for the police, local authority officers and maybe traffic wardens who might be asked to disclose information? It is helpful for Parliament to set out its intent now, whether it is misspelt or not.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for colleagues for their constructive comments and their perfectly valid questions. I will attempt to cover off some of them as I conclude.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth’s characterisation of the appalling ballistic strikes from Russia on Ukraine yesterday. It is important that we put on record our absolute horror at the scale and nature of that activity, and we are as one in our condemnation of the continued barbaric impact of this illegal war on the people of Ukraine. I acknowledge his personal interest in that country.
The hon. Gentleman made the perfectly sensible point that these kinds of transactions—the sort of illicit activity that these instruments are seeking to tackle—are already illegal. What the legislation is doing is tightening up our approach to it. He asked about application. We should acknowledge the context: in our sanctions response so far this year to the outrageous Russian invasion of Ukraine, we have put in place a very robust sanctions package that includes more than 1,200 individual sanctions, more than 120 entities and 126 oligarchs, who have a total net worth in excess of £130 billion. We can feel pleased that we have been active and quite aggressive in terms of our sanctions, but there is always more to do because we are aware of the extent to which Putin and his cronies will find ways around this globally and cryptocurrencies might be one of those elements. That is why we are seeking to tighten up this particular area, but I agree with him that we must be cognisant of the extent to which Russian wealth around the world is being weaponised. The west needs to be urgently aware of that.
The hon. Gentleman used that as a good springboard to go into a discussion about so-called mixers and tumblers. I note that Tornado Cash was sanctioned recently in the US. I am confident that Tornado Cash and Blender are entities that the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire, will be looking at, but I commit to him writing to the hon. Gentleman to confirm that those two entities are under consideration.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the extent to which we are discussing with allies the mechanisms being used for sanctions evasion, and for an update on the discussions between His Majesty’s Treasury and the IMF. I will ask my right hon. Friend to include that in his letter when he has an opportunity to write.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the Minister for those comments. However, he will understand my concerns that those entities were sanctioned by the US, our closest ally, in August. It is now October; that is three months where evasion could have been going on. I appreciate his willingness to look at both those issues with his colleague. Will he commit to a wider review of all types of mixers and tumblers—I named two—that might be used in that way?
Leo Docherty
We are in complete agreement. I agree that this is urgent and it should be a broad consideration of the tumbler facility. I commit to an urgent update from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire on that. He might also usefully cover the finance element of the Russia report, as the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned. He then asked a perfectly valid question about staffing levels at Departments and public agencies with regard to sanctions. Having met members of the legal team earlier today, I am confident that we have some of our best people on it. It is an urgent priority and I think we have the required staffing levels.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned United Russia. I will not be drawn into giving an answer to that now, but I commit to formally replying to that question. He also asked about sequestration. That is a live topic as we consider the remarkable financial challenge of the reconstruction of Ukraine. Clearly, there is a legal context, but that is actively under consideration in the Department. We have already embarked on a great body of work in advance of us hosting the Ukraine reconstruction conference next year. Of course, it is more urgent than that, and it is something we are considering.
Stephen Doughty
The Minister is generous. I have mentioned the importance of keeping at the cutting edge of this. There is an important group established by Ambassador McFaul, the former US ambassador, in which a number of UK experts are involved. However, I am not clear whether there is UK Government representation in that. Will the Minister assure me that we are keeping in close contact with such groups that are trying to be at the cutting edge, to ensure we have the toughest regime possible implemented in the quickest way?
Leo Docherty
I commit to keeping that on our radar. That sounds like a useful proposition, so I am happy to commit to it.
I was pleased to hear questions from the hon. Member for Walthamstow. She asked some good questions about implementation, because this is all about implementation. If we cannot implement it, it will not make a difference and there is no point in doing it. I can give her absolute reassurance that we are in lockstep with our EU and US allies. This is a global effort that is intelligence-led. We each use our domestic law, but this issue is very much joined up because it is a global threat and the response that it demands is global. All our agencies are involved on a daily basis in prosecuting and pursuing this kind of threat.
The hon. Lady asked about public authorities, the balance of compulsion and them volunteering information. Our expectation is that this involves bodies such as the Financial Conduct Authority, for example. It is designed to ensure that they have a road map to being helpful, rather than requiring them to do something they do not want to do. Most people will want to be doing this; it is designed to lay out a clear pathway to information being shared urgently with the Treasury. That is our expectation, but we will measure the response and use that as a mechanism for holding to account and judging success.
Stella Creasy
That is helpful to hear. Will the Minister clarify something? New section 49A, for example, mentions “any police officer”, “any local authority” and “any other person exercising functions of a public nature”.
Will he clarify what level, and will there be training provided? It is quite a big request to make of a police constable to share information. Equally, this will clearly be tested because it comes across other disclosure rules. For example, there are clear guidelines about supervising officers, which do not seem to be in this legislation. What protection will there be for a police constable, for example, maybe from prosecution or censure under general data protection regulation, without clarity as to who makes the decision on what information can be disclosed, and if it is a permissive, rather than mandatory, requirement?
Leo Docherty
I think it is the other way around and that this will actually afford greater protection because it will make things clearer and ensure that there is no risk of GDPR being used so that a certain individual finds themselves in a regrettable circumstance. I think it will clarify. Under this legislation, the public authorities that are exposed to these sorts of issues will be required to conduct that sort of training, and they will be responsible, as we would expect.
The hon. Lady then went on to a mischievous digression, because she sought to use the unfortunate inclusion of inaccurate acronyms as a means of shaking our confidence in not just this legislation but other new legislation as we tidy up our statute following our exit from the EU. I can say that there is no duck soup in this legislation or any other. Clearly drafting errors happen in legislation; it is the way that the world works, unfortunately, but we are, as parliamentarians, amenable and available to redraft and improve, as we are doing this afternoon. Therefore, in answer to the hon. Lady’s question, yes, I am confident not only that this piece of legislation is correct and in good order, but that the vast body of legislation that will flow from our leaving the EU will also be similarly effective and accurate. On that note, I again commend the instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2022 (SI. 2022, No. 818).
Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (High-Risk Countries) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (High-Risk Countries) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022 (SI. 2022, No. 782).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. Due to the sad passing of Her late Majesty, the debate on this statutory instrument has been delayed, but I am pleased to introduce it today.
The SI is largely administrative, and makes only minor updates to provisions under the money laundering regulations. The Government recognise the threat that economic crime poses to the UK and to our international partners, and we are committed to combating money laundering and terrorist financing. Illicit finance causes significant social and economic costs through its link to serious and organised crime. It is a threat to our national security, and it risks damaging our international reputation as a fair and open rules-based economy. It also undermines the integrity and stability of our financial sector, and it can reduce opportunities for legitimate businesses in the UK.
That is why we have taken significant action to combat economic crime, including in legislation with the economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy and the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. However, we are going further. In this Session, we have introduced a second economic crime Bill, which will reform Companies House, and we will develop the second iteration of the landmark economic crime plan. We are also working closely with the private sector and international partners to improve the investigation of economic crime, strengthen international standards on beneficial ownership transparency, and crack down on illicit financing flows.
The money laundering regulations support our overall efforts. As the UK’s core legislative framework for tackling money laundering and terrorist financing, they set out various measures that businesses must take to protect the UK from illicit financial flows. Under these regulations, businesses are required to conduct enhanced checks on business relationships and transactions with high-risk third countries that are identified as having strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regimes, which could pose a significant threat to the UK’s financial system.
The statutory instrument amends the money laundering regulations to update the UK’s list of high-risk third countries. It adds Gibraltar to the list, and removes Malta, which mirrors lists published by the Financial Action Task Force—the global standard setter for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing. For the purposes of the high-risk third countries list, countries include territories and jurisdictions, so Gibraltar, as a UK overseas territory, is treated as a country in that high-risk third countries list. This is the fourth time we have updated the UK list to respond to the evolving risks from third countries, and the update ensures that the UK remains at the forefront of global standards on anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Can the Minister explain why Russia does not appear on the list? Is it because there are separate measures in place such that we do not need to include it? Would it not be prudent to add Russia for the sake of completeness?
Andrew Griffith
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. As he will know, there are separate provisions in respect of Russia, particularly sanctions against individuals and institutions linked to the Russian state or to its leader, Vladimir Putin. This measure refers to standards in banking systems, and the view of the Financial Action Task Force, whose guidance we follow —we are part of the taskforce and are well represented on it—is that the Russian system itself includes protections. The issue of why we are sanctioning Russia is a separate one. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend’s question.
The UK was a founding member of the Financial Action Task Force. We are very much aligned with international partners such as the G7 to drive improvements in anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing systems globally.
This high-risk third country list is one of the Government’s many mechanisms to clamp down on illicit financial flows from overseas threats. We will continue to use other mechanisms to respond, such as the sanctions regime that I mentioned in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley.
The statutory instrument will enable the money laundering regulations to continue to work as effectively as possible to protect the UK financial system. The Government consider it crucial to protect UK businesses and the financial system from money launderers and terrorist financiers. I therefore hope that colleagues on both sides of the Committee will join me in supporting the measure.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins.
I welcome the Minister to his post—I hope he lasts longer than his predecessor. He will have an easy ride in his first meeting with me, because the Labour party is completely committed to supporting the global effort to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Illicit finance is a huge concern. It has immense socioeconomic consequences, including the threat to national security, and erosion of the integrity and reputation of our financial sector. We therefore support the regulations and welcome the inclusion of Gibraltar on the UK’s list of high-risk third countries for money laundering.
The Financial Action Task Force, as the Minister may know, has long warned that the overseas territory’s regulators are not fining offenders in line with prescribed penalties, or focusing hard enough on intermediaries, including lawyers, so will he confirm whether he will be working with his equivalents in Gibraltar to crack down on bad state actors, money launderers and terrorist financiers exploiting the territory’s lax regime? He will know that Gibraltar has strong business ties with the UK, particularly in the insurance sector. Given the high risk that Gibraltar’s inadequate anti-money laundering regime poses to our national security, will the Government review their current policy of allowing UK market access to certain Gibraltarian financial firms without their needing to be separately authorised?
I am not particularly concerned about the removal of Malta from the list. We recognise that Malta is not a major international transit centre for dirty money. However, I would like to hear some reassurance and detail from the Minister today about how the Government will continue to monitor money laundering and terrorist financing risks linked to Malta, despite the country’s removal from the list.
We support the regulations and want to consider them in detail, but we also want to know a bit more about how the Minister will further protect the integrity of the UK’s financial institutions.
Andrew Griffith
I thank the hon. Lady for her party’s support for the legislation. It is obviously a very good look that we are presenting a united front against the evils of terrorist financing and money laundering.
The hon. Lady asked about Gibraltar, and we are committed to working with Gibraltar, as well as other overseas territories, to tackle illicit finance. We are acting to drive improvement on both anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism. I will slightly resist the temptation to pile in on fining lawyers, tempting though that sounds. I will take that under advisement, although it is clearly one of the potential sanctions, speaking as a—well, not quite a lawyer.
The big initiative in this space is work on beneficial ownership, which will expose and surface where links are. We will continue to co-ordinate with all overseas territories on sanctions as we tighten up our own procedures through measures such as the second economic crime Bill.
The Financial Action Task Force itself will continue to review Malta. The hon. Lady is quite right that the matter needs to be kept under advisement, but we are acting on the task force’s advice today by removing Malta from the register.
Question put and agreed to.
Liberty Pressing Solutions
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Blasphemy Laws and Allegations: Commonwealth Countries
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered blasphemy laws and allegations in Commonwealth Countries.
I would first like to express an interest, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief and as chair of the APPG for the Pakistani minorities. These issues are close to my heart, and it is a privilege to speak about them and to try to outline where we wish to be. I therefore thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity to discuss this timely and important topic. As always, I am pleased to see my dear friend the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), in his place. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister, and I thank her for all that she does for persecuted ethnic groups across the world.
Blasphemy laws may sound like an archaic and outdated issue, but they are far from a thing of the past. I thought long and hard about this debate, and I wanted to bring the issue forward for discussion in a positive fashion. As of 2019, 79 countries had laws or policies banning blasphemy, which included speech or actions deemed to be insulting, contemptuous or showing lack of reverence for a God or something sacred. Unfortunately, despite the Commonwealth’s values—which we adhere to—of promoting democracy, human rights and individual liberty, its members are some of the worst offenders. Of the 79 countries that prohibit blasphemy, 26 are Commonwealth states, which equates to 46% of Commonwealth members.
Yesterday was World Day Against the Death Penalty. A higher share of countries inside the Commonwealth than outside it have prison sentences for blasphemy and other legal restrictions. Regrettably, the Commonwealth also has a higher share of countries with the death penalty for blasphemy. Five Commonwealth countries have the death penalty for blasphemy or apostasy, and many more have seen people murdered for them. A clear goal to work towards would be the abolishment of the death penalty for any blasphemy-related charges. While progress would still need to be made to ensure that people are not unjustly imprisoned on blasphemy charges, it would be a big step forward to know that the death penalty was not on the table.
Blasphemy laws are not always in and of themselves an issue—I want to make that clear. They can often be little more than legislation that is never utilised or that lies dormant, with no impact on a country’s people. For instance, Saint Lucia and other Caribbean states have blasphemy laws, but they are not enforced and have every likelihood of never being enforced. However, the fact that they are in place means that, sometime, they could be enacted and enforced and could become a stringent part of the law. Therefore, it is the abuse and misuse of blasphemy laws that is the issue; indeed, it is social attitudes towards blasphemy and the lack of the tolerance for other faiths and beliefs, not blasphemy laws on their own, that leads to violations of freedom of religion or belief.
I recall a visit that the APPG organised to Pakistan in 2018. It was around the time that Asia Bibi had been charged with blasphemy and given the death penalty. That deputation consisted of my colleague, the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), and Lord Alton, from the other place. We decided that if we were going to do something about Asia Bibi it was probably better not to go in with all guns blazing and say, “Blasphemy is wrong, and your constitution is wrong,” because we would get nothing. Instead, we showed how the blasphemy laws in Pakistan at that time were being used in an erroneous, vindictive and malicious way. They were also being used in an untrue and dishonest way, because the allegations were never factually or evidentially proven to be true.
We met two of the three judges—at this stage, I am not breaking any confidences, because the thing is past and over—who told us that they did not see an evidential base for the allegations that were made and were therefore of a mind to free Asia Bibi. We never said that when we came home—I talked to the then Minister and assured him that we did not intend to say anything—because we thought it was more important to have Asia Bibi released. Eventually, she was released to her family and now lives in Canada.
However, there may be other Asia Bibis in Pakistan and across the world in a similar situation, and I will refer to a couple of them. I know that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, who speaks for the Scottish National party, will also speak about some of them, because we have been on many deputations together, including one to Nigeria recently—I will refer to one case in Nigeria and I know he will do the same.
However, before highlighting cases where blasphemy laws pose a serious threat to ordinary people’s lives and are weaponised as tools for persecution, I would like to bring to Members’ attention the fact that a blanket repeal of blasphemy laws would be ill advised and that I am not seeking one. In some circumstances, calls for a blanket repeal would have the unintended consequence of removing certain protections, such as prohibiting the vandalism of places of worship. Far from advancing the fight for freedom of religion or belief, such consequences would simply create new challenges. Instead, it is vital to stress the problems with blasphemy laws and how to counter those challenges. Therefore, a blanket repeal is not the solution, but something must be done, and I hope to make some suggestions during the debate.
Unfortunately, misuse of blasphemy laws or accusations of blasphemy are one of the tools most commonly used to target religious or belief minorities around the world. They are often used as a pretext for land seizures, extrajudicial violence or discriminatory legislation. Blasphemy allegations can make a mockery of a justice system and can often fuel mob violence. They can also be utilised to settle personal vendettas, and they can be invoked more generally to target and drive out religious or belief minorities in a given country or region. There are many examples of such activities, and I have referred to some of them. The susceptibility of some blasphemy laws to such abuses is a grave challenge to freedom of religion or belief for all, with those of many different religions or belief backgrounds falling victim to the misuse of blasphemy laws, particularly in certain states of the Commonwealth.
In recent months, there have been a number of high-profile blasphemy cases, with blasphemy charges filed against Imran Khan, Pakistan’s former Prime Minister, and the murder of Deborah Samuel, a student in Nigeria. I was in Nigeria in May—the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and others were on that trip—and we had a chance to discuss many issues, and the case of that young Christian girl, who I will refer to again later, was one of those we looked at. Such cases illustrate how blasphemy laws are used to restrict freedom of speech, discredit political opponents and attack religious minorities, and they also draw attention to the rule of mob violence in blasphemy allegations and how that determines the legal frameworks that are in place.
A report by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom on the use of blasphemy laws found that extrajudicial violence was particularly prevalent in Pakistan, with more than half of the recorded cases of such violence happening in that country. The other significant contributor from the Commonwealth was Nigeria, which we visited just a few months ago, and I will touch on that later, as will the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. The USCIRF report noted that extrajudicial violence is more likely to happen when persons accused of blasphemy are acquitted through the legal system or police choose not to file charges. That shows that a solution cannot be found through legislation alone but by changing attitudes in a country. I think we have to do that as well, but it has to be done in a gentle way, and I hope that we may just do that very thing through this debate.
Given the high levels of extrajudicial violence, many victims and their families receive death threats and must live in hiding, in fear of their lives, even if they are found innocent—I have referred to one such case already. In these cases, victims are unable to access asylum pathways, as they are stuck in their country of origin and cannot make a claim until they leave. One case that illustrates that scenario and sheds light on Pakistan’s blasphemy laws more broadly is that of Sawan Masih. I have raised this case in the past, as have other colleagues present today, but it is worthy of renewed attention, given that last week marked two years since Sawan’s acquittal but there has been little improvement in the situation. The Minister is always responsive to us—we all appreciate that—and I ask her to give us an update on the case today if she can. If not, I am happy for us to be notified afterwards.
Sawan Masih was a Christian street sweeper, a father of three from the city of Lahore in Pakistan. He was imprisoned in March 2013 and sentenced to death for blasphemy in March 2014. Sawan’s appeal hearing was adjourned at least 16 times, but on 5 October 2020 he was finally acquitted in Lahore High Court. He was released 10 days later, with the delay due to security concerns for his life. His father lived to hear news of the acquittal, but died before Sawan could see him. Sadly, earlier this year, his mother also passed away without seeing her son. Sawan and his family now live in a secret location, as they would most likely be murdered if their location was known.
Sawan Masih’s arrest happened only after mob violence—it was not the rule of law that led to his dire circumstances, but the abuse of the law. Local factory workers went on strike for Sawan’s arrest. More than 3,000 Muslims attacked his home village, torching 180 Christian homes, 75 shops and two churches. Sawan believes that the charge against him was part of a plot by local businessmen to seize land previously held by Christians. The fact that blasphemy laws can be manipulated in such a way is at the heart of this debate. Spurious accusations should not be a vehicle for settling personal disputes or targeting minorities who have little recourse to justice.
Sawan’s life has been irreversibly damaged by the malicious levelling of blasphemy allegations. Pakistan’s justice system has been undermined by mob rule provoked by malicious and vindictive allegations. Our asylum process has also been shown to be further flawed, owing to the fact that Sawan is still in hiding, with an ever-diminishing hope of a safe and full future for himself, his wife and his family. Regrettably, Sawan is just one of many people in Pakistan who faces such a situation. According to the National Commission for Justice and Peace, 84 individuals were charged with blasphemy in 2021, and many others remain imprisoned or on death row.
How do we prevent cases such as that of Sawan Masih? One solution, which is key to this debate, is for blasphemy laws to be amended to include reference to intentionality. In essence, blasphemy laws that stress intentionality would mean that intention to cause insult would need to be established before someone was convicted for this offence. The absence of a reference to intent in article 295C of Pakistan’s blasphemy law means that the prosecutor does not carry the burden of proving that the accused had the intention of blasphemy. Such a problem is not unique to Pakistan, but Pakistan’s more active enforcement of blasphemy laws makes an amendment ever more relevant. Moreover, a general promotion of amending laws to introduce an intentionality clause in countries where blasphemy laws are misused could dramatically improve the situation for religious and belief groups, not to mention the vigour of the law as a whole. Given that the UK is a significant giver of aid to Pakistan, the UK Government should not be backwards at coming forwards—that is a bit of an Irishism—in recommending such a change in the law, laying the groundwork for other members of the Commonwealth to do similarly. There should be no toleration of low standards of evidence for convicting somebody of blasphemy in any country, let alone one with which the UK has such close ties.
My final point about Pakistan, which is also relevant to other countries, is that cyber-laws, for example, should not be used as a back door for blasphemy laws. In November 2020, Pakistan enacted an amendment to the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 that empowered the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority to block or remove online content if it considers it necessary
“in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan”
or public order, decency or morality. Unfortunately, such a law enables the targeting of minorities for blasphemy-related charges. Since its enactment, six Ahmadi Muslims have been arrested owing to those laws, and 17 named in police reports.
We have made overtures to Pakistan in the past about the Ahmadi, and we will do it again. The Ahmadis are a small Muslim sect who are persecuted by other Muslims in Pakistan. Such digital persecution exacerbates the difficulties for Ahmadis and other religious groups in Pakistan, with even the online sphere no longer being a forum where they can speak or learn about their faith. With the rise in digital persecution globally, our policymakers must not be ignorant of the challenges that cyber poses and how it compounds human rights challenges around the world, particularly pertaining to freedom of religious belief.
Another country I would like to draw attention to is Nigeria. As I said, I was in Nigeria with the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and others. It was a chance for us to seek answers on freedom of religious belief and to highlight cases, and I want to highlight one in particular. Nigeria’s legal system arguably allows for some of the most punitive sentences in any Commonwealth member state for blasphemy allegations, if cases even reach the courts to start with.
Horrifically, in May this year, a student called Deborah Samuel was stoned to death. This young Christian girl was set on fire by a mob over an alleged blasphemous comment in a WhatsApp group. Just a few weeks later, Ahmad Usman was burned to death by a mob of 200 people after he was accused of making a blasphemous comment against a cleric. Undeniably, it is not even the misuse of blasphemy laws that leads to persecution in such cases, but the devastating hostility towards those of other religious beliefs—it is mob rule and mob violence, irrespective of the issue, with allegations mostly unproven and with no evidential base whatever. Neglectful law enforcement and a culture of impunity permit such murderous acts to prevail, and only two people have been arrested so far in connection with Deborah Samuel’s murder, despite the prevalence of social media footage depicting it.
Apparently, young Deborah Samuel’s crime was to express frustration with members of the group chat for posting religious articles and to ask them to focus on the coursework at hand. Those are very gentle words, and not confrontational or difficult in any way. Some reports indicate that Deborah Samuel had rejected the advances of a Muslim student and that he made the allegations against her in retaliation. Undeniably, in such a case, it is not even about the misuse of laws, but the devastating hostility.
There should be no place for mob rule in any country. When such unlawful behaviour emerges, it should be met with repercussions. Yet, neglectful law enforcement and a culture of impunity permit such murderous acts to prevail and let mob rule and violence take prominence. Only two people have been arrested so far in connection with Deborah Samuel’s murder, despite the prevalence of social media footage. There is an abundant evidential base depicting her brutal murder.
Worse still, the two students who were arrested were charged only with criminal conspiracy and disturbing the peace—both bailable offences—rather than facing the more fitting charge of culpable homicide, which is what it should have been and what the evidential base proves. They are receiving legal representation from a team of 34 lawyers led by a professor of law. While a fair trial is a necessity—I am always for fair trials—one cannot help but wish that such legal support was provided to those falsely accused of blasphemy and facing trial in sharia courts.
While we were in Nigeria, we were very aware of how sharia law seems on many occasions to supersede the law of the land. Although the sentence stipulated for blasphemy under Nigeria’s criminal code is two years, Nigeria’s dual legal system of customary and sharia law enables sharia courts to trump federal law and impose extreme sentences for blasphemy. Rather than two years, sharia law permits the death penalty.
The religious make-up of Nigeria is split down the middle. I understand—I hope the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute will back me up—that Christians are 50% of the population of Nigeria and Muslims are 50%. It is very much a 50:50 split, so it is important that people get on with their neighbours and embrace what they say.
The sharia law penal codes in those states, coupled with the retention of blasphemy punishments in the criminal code, have served to embolden religious extremists to take matters into their own hands and misuse blasphemy laws to serve selfish and manipulative ends. One of the highest profile cases of a recent blasphemy allegation reaching the courts in Nigeria is that of Mubarak Bala, which the hon. Gentleman will refer to. We met the Nigerian Humanist Association and had discussions with the Minister responsible, and we were quite encouraged by their response. Mubarak Bala was sentenced to 24 years in prison following accusations that he insulted the Prophet Mohammed in a Facebook post. He was penalised under sections 114 and 210 of Kano state’s penal code, which aims to implement parts of sharia legislation into the civil code and merge the penal codes of other sharia states. It is very important that the law of the land is not used detrimentally, as it has been in this case. The hon. Gentleman will refer more to that.
The fact that sharia law can take precedence over the criminal code should give cause for concern, but it has not. Hon. Members and others outside this Chamber have not realised that they need to focus on that issue. Whether we agree with the person’s views or comments, I hope we all agree that 24 years in prison for a Facebook post is disproportionate, no matter who is alleged to have been insulted.
The implementation of sharia-based blasphemy laws curtails the liberty of all in Nigeria. Everyone is subject to an interpretation of the law—not necessarily the law of the land—that stands in stark contradiction to Nigeria’s constitution, which protects freedom of religion or belief and states:
“The Government of the Federation or of a State shall not adopt any religion as State Religion.”
Well, that is what it says, but the reality is different. That concerns us greatly, and more so since our deputation to Nigeria. Sharia-based blasphemy laws are contrary to that statement and affect those of other minority religious beliefs—Christians, other small ethic minority religious groups and humanists, in particular. Reasserting a rule of law that is not sharia-based should be one of the Government’s key priorities when working with Nigeria so that freedom of religion or belief can become a reality for all. What discussions have the Minister and our Government had with the Nigerian Government on that case? Have we had an update yet?
The Nigerian people are lovely, and we were welcomed royally when we were there back in May. We found them to be incredibly helpful, and we cherish and wish to hold on to our relationship with Nigeria, but as friends we also have to highlight issues that concern us, and this is one.
I want to draw out the importance of focusing on blasphemy allegations and the misuse of blasphemy laws in Commonwealth countries. Although the scale of the abuse can in some countries be significant, our role as the UK is vital. As a friend and ally, we should encourage higher standards and greater accord with human rights, with freedom of religion or belief serving as a cornerstone human right. When such states attempt to justify their blasphemy laws by pointing to dead-letter laws in the west, they are being intellectually dishonest, as the differences in the enforcement of those laws could not be further apart.
I am glad that the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 2018 affirmed that freedom of religion or belief is
“essential for democracy and sustainable development”,
and that our Government and the Minister adhered to that. It would be lovely if they did more than just talk about it and instead acted as though they actually believed in it. I remind the Minister that when we trade with those countries, or give them aid, we should bear in mind that commitment and that principle, which are welcome, and repeatedly focus on human rights conditions on the ground and the true equal treatment of all religions and beliefs before the law.
I am mindful of the good work that many Commonwealth states do to promote freedom of religion or belief for all, and there is no denying the leading work done by countries such as Canada, New Zealand and others with respect to blasphemy laws, as well as their encouragement of other states to implement fair law. I believe that by working together we can make freedom of religion or belief a reality. That starts with working with those countries with which we have well-established links and a reciprocal honest relationship.
I would like to share the words of the apostle Paul, which I often use on such occasions, and which are close to my beliefs. The words from Ephesians are very clear that we should act
“with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love”.
We live in a diverse and culturally vibrant world, and it is good to have that. While it brings many joys, as it does, it sometimes means that we do not always see eye to eye, but by heeding words of patience and humility, and translating those guiding principles into law, we can grow our tolerance for one another and deepen our respect for difference. That is what the debate is all about: how we can look at the blasphemy laws and focus on those words of patience and humility, and on translating those guiding principles into law. With that comes the tolerance we have for others, and others have for us.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
First, I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. I know that her interest in such subjects is profound, and I am pleased to see her in her place, as I am pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton)—my hon. Friend, as we call each other. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for continually shining a spotlight on freedom of religion or belief, for securing the debate and for his excellent and detailed speech.
It is deeply concerning that in the 21st century the rights to freedom of religion, belief and expression are still severely limited in many Commonwealth countries, and that all too often blasphemy laws are used to silence people who hold minority views. I intend to focus on the use of death penalty policy in the Commonwealth. In doing so, I will be assisted by research and work undertaken recently by the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, which I have the privilege of chairing. The alliance has grown to 42 countries, members and friends, and we will shortly issue a statement on blasphemy and related offences. Later this month, we will call for action across the world.
Research in Australia by Monash University examined 12 countries identified as having retained the death penalty as a lawful possibility for offences against religion. Apart from Nigeria and Pakistan, which are the two most concerning Commonwealth examples and on which I want to focus my remarks, those countries include Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, the Maldives, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. It is worth mentioning that of those 12 countries, 11 have established Islam as a state religion. The 12th country, Nigeria, has no state religion, but the 12 Nigerian states in which blasphemy is punishable by death operate a sharia law system in parallel with secular courts. In all 12 countries, sharia is cited as the basis on which the death penalty is prescribed for offences against religion, regardless of whether that penalty has been subsequently codified. We therefore have an issue, but it is one of policy and legislation as well as one of religion. That requires advocacy at different levels, including within Islam.
I will give a few short examples from Nigeria. Yahaya Sharif-Aminu was a Sufi Islamic gospel musician from Kano state who was accused of blasphemy for sending audio messages on WhatsApp in 2020. His house was burned down, and he was arrested and sentenced to death by hanging. His conviction was overturned, but he is still in danger of being convicted. As recently as August 2022, a court of appeal upheld the constitutionality of the blasphemy law in his case. His lawyer will soon appeal to the Supreme Court to call for the blasphemy law to be ruled unconstitutional.
There is a particularly disturbing case for me as a mother, although so many are. In 2020, 13-year-old Omar Farouq was sentenced to 10 years in prison for blasphemy after comments were made to a friend. Thankfully, his conviction was eventually overturned, although only on procedural irregularities.
As we have heard, the impact of blasphemy laws goes beyond the courtroom and into the community—dreadfully and fatally so in the case of Deborah Samuel Yakubu, a young teenage girl who was burned to death in Sokoto after an allegation of blasphemy in 2021. She had been accused of insulting the Prophet Mohammed in a WhatsApp classroom discussion group, although apparently she had merely thanked Jesus for helping her in an exam. All of this is happening under the watch of the constitution of Nigeria, which prohibits the adoption of any religion as a state religion. The reality, though, is that the state endorses numerous anti-secular and theocratic policies. Islam is often regarded as the de facto state religion in nine of the northern states, where the majority of the population is Muslim. Blasphemy laws in those sharia states allow the death penalty, which has affected Christians, atheists, Shi’a Muslims, artists, converts and those expressing beliefs that local leaders find offensive.
I turn now to Pakistan, which actually ratified the international covenant on freedom of religion or belief—the international covenant on civil and political rights—in 2010. However, it is ranked No. 8 in the Open Doors 2022 world watch list, and a main source of persecution comes from the strict blasphemy laws. Even though freedom of speech is guaranteed under the Pakistani constitution, it is limited by law and considerations of national security, and also by
“the interest of the glory of Islam”.
Pakistan’s strict blasphemy laws have been in place in their present form since 1986, punishing blasphemy with death or life imprisonment for
“deliberately or maliciously outraging the religious feelings of any class or the citizens of Pakistan—either spoken or written.”
Over the past 30 years, nearly 2,000 people have been accused under the blasphemy laws, yet Amnesty estimates that most examples are based on false premises and lack evidence. Although the most severe punishment of execution has not been used in Pakistan to the knowledge of the international community, it is acknowledged that the laws have been used to sentence people to death and to incite harassment and violence against those accused under the law. In a judgment released by the Pakistani Supreme Court recently, the judges noted that
“many a time false allegations are levelled to settle personal scores and cases are also registered for mischievous purposes or on account of ulterior motives.”
I will not go into too much detail about some of the more high-profile cases; suffice to say that I was deeply saddened last year to hear of the case of Shagufta and Shafqat, a couple who were on death row for seven years for sending allegedly blasphemous text messages. Eventually their sentence was overturned in June last year, when it was found that neither of them could read or write. Stephen Masih spent three years in jail after being accused of blasphemy by his neighbour during an argument over a pigeon.
Jim Shannon
Surely the cases that the hon. Lady has outlined show a failing in the police investigations. For the two people who were accused of blasphemy but could neither read nor write, why did it take so long for that to be sorted out? Surely the police investigation would have sorted it out right away.
Fiona Bruce
One of the problems is that many countries sign up to international covenants and rights, including of freedom of religion or belief, in their constitutions, and yet the court systems and the police investigation systems often do not apply the principles in practice. That does need to be looked at.
The social implications of Pakistan maintaining blasphemy laws cannot be underestimated in terms of mob violence, the burning of villages and the public parading of blasphemers, which are all too common. Two politicians who have advocated against blasphemy laws have been assassinated within the last 10 years. One defendant died from a gun wound after he was shot in court, when on trial in 2020.
What can be done to better respect and protect freedom of religion or belief? One of the outcomes of our London ministerial conference on FORB in July this year—I am delighted to report that no less than 88 Governments sent delegates—is to provide funding for lawyers via an organisation called Role UK, Rule of Law Expertise, to work in countries such as Nigeria to support law reform. That is exactly the kind of issue that the hon. Member for Strangford referred to.
We need to use the respect and expertise of UK lawyers in the Commonwealth to modify or repeal blasphemy, defamation of religion and other speech laws that allow for the persecution of individuals. Frequent concerns that have been expressed, such as the vague wording of such laws, lack of due process and arbitrary enforcement, need to be addressed. I am pleased to confirm that one of the “next steps” set of actions, which is being led by the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance with the aid of our experts, is to look at how legal systems can be strengthened to better reflect FORB in practice. UK Ministers should use every opportunity, including on in-country visits, to raise FORB concerns with their counterparts, including those raised in the debate today. What assurance can the Minister give me on that?
We should appeal to countries such as Nigeria and Pakistan to enact strong safeguards to ensure that individuals who take sharia blasphemy laws into their own hands are punished under law. This is a human rights issue. Sunni schools agree that only the ruler of a state should sentence people to death and that vigilantism on the basis of alleged apostasy should be punished, meaning no individual Muslim without state authority could execute an apostate. That is of relevance to Pakistan, where there is widespread violence at community level. There is a need for careful advocacy, supporting the position of many contemporary Islamic scholars, as articulated by the retired chief justice of Pakistan, S.A. Rahman:
“The position that emerges, after a survey of the relevant verses of the Qur’an, may be summed up by saying that not only is there no punishment for apostasy provided in the Book, but that the Word of God clearly envisages the natural death of the apostate…He will be punished only in the Hereafter.”
We need to urge Commonwealth countries to uphold and fiercely protect the rights of individuals to a fair trial and to ensure due process. Often the emotion of a crowd of accusers has expedited trials to the detriment of a court firmly establishing the facts. Again, careful advocacy locally led with the support of international non-governmental organisations can make an impact. We should thank organisations such as ADF, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Open Doors, CAN and Amnesty for their tireless advocacy. We should join with these NGOs in calling for the release of individuals facing the death penalty, and with the report of the UN Secretary-General on the 13 August 2020 in calling for a moratorium on the application of the death penalty for non-violent conduct such as apostasy and blasphemy, in line with the agreement of the international covenant on civil and political rights, which so many countries have signed up to, including Nigeria and Pakistan. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I thank Mr Shannon and Mrs Bruce for their contributions. We now go to the Front Benches. I call Mr Brendan O’Hara.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Thank you, Sir Charles. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for this morning’s debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing it. I agree with him that it will come as a surprise to many people in the UK that 79 countries across the world still have blasphemy laws on their statute books, and that 26 of those are members of the Commonwealth; that is almost half of the membership. As we have heard, where blasphemy laws are in place, they are all too often used to target religious or non-religious minority groups. They are also commonly used to discriminate against ethnic minorities, to facilitate land seizures, or as a convenient way to settle personal disputes. Blasphemy laws are also often used as an excuse to legitimise extrajudicial violence, particularly when someone accused of blasphemy is acquitted through the courts or the police choose not to file charges. In those cases, blasphemy laws have given a cloak of legitimacy to the mob, which has used them as a green light or a call to arms to take matters into its own hands when it feels the judicial process is not delivering the answer it wants.
We have seen far too many cases of mob violence against individuals or minority communities, including, as we have heard from the hon. Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Strangford, the case of young Deborah Samuel in Sokoto in Nigeria in May. Because of comments she made on a student WhatsApp group, Deborah was declared a blasphemer. She was brutally beaten and stoned before being burned in a pile of tyres, while others recorded the whole sickening event on their mobile phones. Despite that evidence going viral around the world, only two students have been arrested for Deborah’s death, and they have been charged not with murder but with criminal conspiracy and disturbing the peace. It is an indication of the degree of support they enjoy that, following their arrest, the mob turned out again to demand their release from custody. Sadly, history tells us not to expect too much in the way of justice for Deborah, because the culture of impunity that usually accompanies such crimes will likely mean that the perpetrators of this awful murder face few or no consequences for their actions.
As the hon. Member for Strangford said, two weeks after Deborah’s murder we were in Nigeria. We spoke to religious groups, secular groups, charities, non-governmental organisations and regional and federal Government. Nigeria is a deeply religious country that, in numerical terms, is almost evenly split between Christians and Muslims, but there are also those who follow traditional African religions and those who have no religious faith—humanists. In a country so divided along religious lines, Nigeria’s humanists need someone to defend their corner, particularly after the jailing of Mubarak Bala, the president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, who was imprisoned for 24 years for blasphemy on his Facebook page. It is a remarkable and totally unjustifiable punishment for something that most of us would not even recognise as a crime or offence. Some of our delegation spent time with Mubarak’s wife and young child while we were in Abuja, and we promised them we would raise Mubarak’s case and the length of his sentence at every opportunity in this place. I would appreciate it if the Minister updated us with the latest from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and told us what it is doing to help secure the release of Mubarak Bala.
As we have heard from the hon. Members for Congleton and for Strangford, Nigeria is not the only senior member of the Commonwealth where blasphemy laws are being used, or where even the accusation of blasphemy can be fatal; the picture is similarly bleak in Pakistan. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Congleton raised the case of the American citizen Tahir Naseem, who in 2020 was shot dead inside a courtroom while standing trial for blasphemy. Tahir was from the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, the only religious community to be explicitly targeted by Pakistan’s laws on the grounds of its faith. Over the years, its members have been relentlessly harassed, denied their civil rights, murdered and officially declared non-Muslim. The murder of Tahir brought thousands out on to the street, not in protest but in support of his murderer, a teenager who had somehow managed to get a loaded gun through three separate security checks before shooting Tahir multiple times. Tahir was a US citizen, and the State Department was unequivocal in its condemnation, saying that he
“had been lured to Pakistan from his home in Illinois by individuals who then used Pakistan’s blasphemy laws to entrap him.”
As we have heard, arguably the most high profile case in recent years has been that of Asia Bibi, the Christian woman who in 2010 was arrested and given a death sentence following a dispute with her neighbour who claimed that she had insulted the Prophet. It took eight years for the Supreme Court to acquit her because of lack of evidence, but even then her family were forced into hiding, and a cleric put a bounty of half a million rupees on her head for anyone who would kill her. The Asia Bibi case shone a light on Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, but rather than opening up the debate on their use and purpose, those who dared to question their very existence were themselves deemed guilty of blasphemy, and Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab province, and the country’s religious Minister, Shahbaz Bhatti, were both murdered after calling for blasphemy law reform in 2011.
The stark reality is that, as Omar Waraich, head of south Asia at Amnesty International, pointed out, in blasphemy cases in Pakistan
“an accusation becomes a death sentence, whether carried out by the state or by mobs of vigilantes.”
The hon. Member for Strangford was therefore absolutely right to question how the continued existence and widespread use of blasphemy laws in so many Commonwealth countries can sit in an organisation whose own core values and principles say that it is there to support
“tolerance, respect, understanding, moderation and religious freedom”.
That blasphemy laws still exist in almost half the countries of the Commonwealth is of huge concern, but the manner in which they are being used as a tool of repression is deeply alarming, whether that is through the courts or the unofficial green light to the mob.
Jim Shannon
One of the problems, which the hon. Gentleman clearly referred to, is the fact that lawyers and even judges are often frightened to accept blasphemy cases. At the highest level of the law of the land, people are afraid. Does he agree?
Brendan O'Hara
There is ample evidence that lawyers and judges are intimidated by the rule of the mob. We have to be part of addressing that to find a solution. I have great sympathy for the argument that we should press for immediate abolition, but the reality on the ground is much more complex and nuanced. Like so much across the Commonwealth, blasphemy legislation is a direct product of British colonialism, because we put much of the blasphemy legislation in place many years ago. The legal precedent for blasphemy laws originated here. At the time it was thought convenient to put a range of other legislation in there, too, meaning that all too often blasphemy covers much more than what we would consider to be blaspheming. Rather than reaching for the wrecking ball, perhaps we have to use diplomacy, international law and solidarity with these persecuted people to bring about positive change. That should start with the Minister calling on all Commonwealth countries who currently have people imprisoned for blasphemy to release them immediately, starting with Mubarak Bala.
The UK must play its part in offering asylum to the people, and their families, who have been accused of blasphemy and who are at grave risk of extrajudicial violence. The UK should encourage countries as they move to repeal, and we must ensure that they start to decouple all offences that are not blasphemous but that have historically been covered by blasphemy legislation. The UK should condemn unreservedly any legal system in which individuals can be accused, arrested, convicted or demonised on little or no evidence where it is clear that a personal vendetta is a motivating factor. As we work towards the eventual abandonment of all blasphemy legislation across the Commonwealth, the UK has to insist that, as an absolute minimum, no one can be convicted of blasphemy unless there is intent to cause offence, or insult can be proven, because right now people are being convicted of so-called crimes that they were totally unaware they had even committed.
The widespread use of blasphemy laws and the awful human cost that that brings with it can have no place in an organisation that claims to have the promotion of
“tolerance, respect, understanding, moderation and religious freedom”
as its core values. While I share the desire to see these laws abolished immediately, given the complexity of the situation, getting rid of them can be best achieved by supporting, pressuring, cajoling, incentivising and calling out regimes that use blasphemy laws in this way.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Charles, in the first debate after the conference recess. I thank my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for securing this debate. His work on the issue is hugely appreciated by Members from all parts of the House. I also thank my friend, the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is a known champion for freedom of religion and belief. I am glad that the conference that she and many others organised earlier this year was such a great success, with 88 Governments sending representatives. That is a tribute to her work and that of the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman opened the debate by saying that Commonwealth countries are some of the worst offenders when it comes to blasphemy laws, and that a higher proportion of them impose the death penalty for blasphemy. That should be a source of some shame to the Commonwealth. He mentioned exceptions, and I am glad that he pointed out St Lucia, which is a Caribbean island with blasphemy laws that are not enforced. Why does it need them in the first place? That is the question we should be asking.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the central issue is the misuse and abuse of these laws, rather than the laws themselves. That was a very important point. He told us that it had been demonstrated clearly that blasphemy laws were being wrongly applied, for example in Pakistan, where they have often been weaponised. Every speaker today has given examples of that.
The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), rightly said that the blanket repeal of those laws may well have unintended consequences, such as the vandalism of minority places of worship. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, blasphemy laws can be and have been used to try to drive out religious minorities, and should not be used as an excuse for ditching the rule of law and ruling by mob. He concluded with something that I thought rang true for all of us, and with his permission, it is a phrase that I will quote again and again. He said that we need to “deepen our respect for difference” and that, eventually, eradicating blasphemy laws will be part of that. That is a great phrase.
We heard that the hon. Member for Congleton is worried that rights to freedom of religion and belief are still curtailed by blasphemy laws in many Commonwealth countries. There are 12 countries that still retain the death penalty for blasphemy. She mentioned Nigeria in particular, as every speaker in this debate has done. Nine states there use sharia law, which seems to invalidate the constitution and the rights it confers on citizens. She quoted many appalling examples of the abuse of blasphemy laws in Nigeria. They are contrary to the constitution of the country, which prohibits a state religion.
Freedom of religion or belief includes the fundamental right to be a non-believer. It is vital that those freedoms are protected everywhere, and that the United Kingdom uses its position to put diplomatic pressure on countries that retain such oppressive blasphemy laws. As we have heard, 79 countries in the world have laws banning blasphemy, and 26 of those are Commonwealth states; that is 46% of the 56 Commonwealth members. New Zealand and Malta repealed their blasphemy laws, but only in the last six years, which is surprising.
The main countries enforcing blasphemy laws are Bangladesh, Brunei, Nigeria and Pakistan. In countries such as Pakistan, authorities use such laws to target religious minorities and Muslim sects that are not officially respected or tolerated. Even when blasphemy laws are enforced weakly, if at all, they none the less
“in both theory and practice, harm individuals and societies”,
according to the US State Department in 2017. They are wrong in principle, and they are open to abuse. The enforcement of blasphemy laws varies significantly between countries, but the fact that they are still on the books in so many places should be a cause for concern for all of us in this House.
Let me quote article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights. I am sure we all know it, but it is helpful to reinforce it and remember what it says:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
Although it is important to oppose the restriction of the freedom of expression everywhere, the UK must focus its diplomatic pressure on those Commonwealth member states that allow violence against religious minorities and atheists on the grounds of blasphemy. One example that many speakers mentioned is Pakistan, which often punishes blasphemy by death. As we know, its blasphemy laws mainly target the country’s Ahmadiyya Muslim and Christian communities, but the extrajudicial killings of those who are deemed blasphemous are particularly worrying. Far more must be done to tone down the rhetoric and ensure that any accusations are treated sensibly and in accordance with the law, as we would expect in any free society that follows the rule of law.
Let us remind ourselves of what the US State Department said in 2018:
“Among the range of universal, interdependent human rights, the freedom to follow one’s conscience in matters of religion or belief is essential to human dignity and human flourishing”.
As we have heard, many incidents illustrate the kind of extrajudicial violence that those accused of blasphemy often face. I shall remind hon. Members again of Tahir Naseem, who was shot dead in court in 2020 after being accused of blasphemy. As the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, said, in 2011 the governor of Pakistan’s Punjab province, Salman Taseer, and the country’s religious minorities Minister, Shahbaz Bhatti, were also killed after calling for reform of the blasphemy law. They were only calling for reform, and yet they were murdered.
As we heard, another recent case of the disturbing use of blasphemy laws is that of Mubarak Bala, the president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria. As the SNP spokesperson said, Mr Bala was sentenced to 24 years in prison in connection with a number of social media posts, some of which were deemed blasphemous. I am delighted to hear that, as part of the delegation that went to Nigeria, the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute and for Strangford met the family and promised to do all they could to see the sentenced cancelled. Before being sentenced, Mr Bala had been held without charge for 462 days, and he was denied access to a legal team and medical care for five months. That is completely unacceptable. It does not matter what the allegation is: it is unacceptable to treat anybody who has been accused in that way.
Blasphemy laws are not just an issue for other Commonwealth countries; they have a direct impact here in the United Kingdom. The use of violence legitimised by the accusation of blasphemy contributed to the murder of Asad Shah, an Ahmadiyya Muslim, in Glasgow in 2016—a case that shocked all of us. I remember hearing the news and being lobbied by the Ahmadiyya community in my own constituency. The killer said that his reason was that Shah had made blasphemous statements. It is also in our country’s interest to do everything that we can to bring these repressive laws to an end in all Commonwealth countries. Will the Minister therefore tell us what discussions she has had with our Commonwealth partners on the use of blasphemy laws, and whether she has taken any diplomatic steps to urge those countries to remove them? Will she also tell us the Government’s view on the use—sometimes described as “misuse”—of blasphemy laws, and will she review the Government’s position on that term?
We live in a completely globalised world, and we should protect the rights of all who choose to have faith or not. The diversity of our Commonwealth friends and allies is what makes our partnership thrive. It is vital that the UK does all it can to urge countries still employing blasphemy laws to begin to drop them and finally to eradicate them.
Last week I had the opportunity to visit Morocco as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group and in my role as shadow Minister for peace and disarmament. Morocco is a very interesting country, although I know it is not in the Commonwealth. My late father lived in Tangier as a child, and my late uncle—who was Jewish as well—was the mayor of Tangier in the 1940s, during the second world war. Morocco is a country that tolerates freedom of religion and belief and has demonstrated that very clearly. Indeed, we visited St Andrew’s church in Tangier, which was given by the sultan in the late 1880s to Queen Victoria. It is a magnificent church, decorated in the Islamic style, with contributions made by the local mosque and synagogue. It was a great feeling being there.
We also had the privilege of meeting an organisation called the Rabita Mohammadia of the Ulemas. The name did not mean much to me, but, literally translated, it means “the league of scholars”—the league of Islamic scholars, of course. It was reconstituted, having lain dormant for many years, by the current monarch, King Mohammed VI. I do not think I have ever heard an Islamic scholar speak as clearly and openly about what Islam means, not just to him and all the worshippers and adherents throughout the world, but for Christianity and Judaism. Indeed, he mentioned Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism as well. It actually means freedom for all those who believe in the human spirit and in faith in God or someone above and beyond their own selves.
This man that we met in the most extraordinary premises in Rabat was a really serious scholar, who talked in philosophical terms that I do not think I have ever had the privilege to hear. I wanted to share that with Members today, because sometimes we believe that it is only Islam that is so extreme. To hear scholars like that in a country where the King has a really important place in the ummah of Islam worldwide gives one faith again in goodness and humanity, that the human spirit will conquer all in the end, and that we will be able to achieve the freedom of religious belief that we all aspire to.
The Minister for Development (Vicky Ford)
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I join others in expressing how grateful I am to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate and for all he does with the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I thank all hon. Members for their insightful contributions. I will try to cover a number of the points they raised.
Let me begin by underlining the Government’s deep concern that the use of blasphemy laws undermines the right to freedom of religion or belief, the right to freedom of expression, and often the right to gender equality as well. My remarks today will cover the broad spectrum of the UK’s work on freedom of religion or belief, of which our work to tackle the misuse of blasphemy laws is an important part.
Freedom of religion or belief is the right of every person to hold any faith or belief, or none at all, and the freedom to change if they choose. It is the very foundation of a free and open society. People should not live in fear of persecution for what they hold in their hearts or how they choose to express it. For these reasons, the UK Government remain committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all. Promoting these rights is one of the UK’s long-standing human rights priorities.
The use of blasphemy laws that undermine human rights, including freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression, is deeply concerning. The laws generally limit freedom of expression and are compatible with international human rights law in only very narrow circumstances. The Government regularly apply diplomatic pressure on countries that misuse blasphemy laws, often through private lobbying as that can be the most effective way to resolve a sensitive case or bring about longer-term change.
Hon. Members have drawn particular attention to the Commonwealth. We are proud to be part of the Commonwealth alliance, which is united behind the shared values of sovereignty, democracy and human rights. In June this year, member states reiterated those values at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Kigali, where they
“noted that freedom of religion or belief are cornerstones of democratic societies.”
However, despite the agreed values, there remain counties where a person may be imprisoned, fined or even sentenced to death for leaving a religion or expressing a dissenting opinion about a religion.
As a matter of principle, this Government oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. Our position is well known to Commonwealth members, including Brunei, Malaysia, Maldives, Nigeria and Pakistan. We do not shy away from challenging those who we believe are not meeting their obligations, whether publicly or, when we believe it is most effective, in private.
Hon. Members spoke about Pakistan and Nigeria, so I will turn to those two countries. In Pakistan, we strongly oppose the use of blasphemy laws against both Muslims and non-Muslims. In June, Lord Ahmad impressed upon Pakistan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs the need to uphold freedom of religion or belief. The British high commissioner regularly lobbies the Pakistani authorities to guarantee the rights of all people, particularly the most vulnerable, including women, minorities and children. We strongly condemn forced marriage and forced conversion of Hindu, Christian and Sikh women and girls, which is an important part of our engagement with the Government. Forcing women and girls into marriage is a serious abuse of women’s rights that often robs them of the right to choose their own future.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the Ahmadiyya Muslims. We remain very concerned about the reports of discrimination and violence against religious communities in Pakistan, including the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. We continue to urge the Government of Pakistan, at senior levels, to guarantee the fundamental rights of their citizens, regardless of their belief. Some individual cases have been mentioned, particularly that of Tahir Naseem. We strongly condemn the shocking murder of Mr Naseem while he was on trial for blasphemy in 2020, and we are very clear that the perpetrators of such crimes must be brought to justice.
In Nigeria, the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and expression is enshrined in the constitution, but blasphemy is still a punishable offence under both secular and sharia law. The murder of Deborah Samuel in Sokoto state in May, following an allegation of blasphemy, was a barbaric and heinous act. I expressed my condemnation in public at the time and urged the relevant authorities to ensure that the perpetrators faced justice in line with the law. I again condemn that attack today and again urge that the perpetrators face justice. Hon. Members may be interested to know that when the Sultan of Sokoto came here to the ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief in July, he pointed to good inter-faith relations in Sokoto between Muslims and Christians, but he also underlined the point that the action was criminal and has no religious legitimacy.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her strong response on blasphemy laws, which I expected. In relation to wee Deborah Samuel, there is a strong evidential base—it is available in some media, and many people have it. Has it been reinforced to the Nigerian Government that that evidential base, which we believe to be emphatic, could be used to try people not just for some minor crimes, but for murder?
Vicky Ford
The hon. Member makes a strong point. As I said just now, the sultan of the area condemned that act as criminal. We condemn all violence against civilians in Nigeria. Christians have been victims of violence, but civilians of all faiths—including many Muslims—have also suffered devastating harm at the hands of extremist groups.
Mubarak Bala was, as Members have mentioned, arrested in 2020 for alleged blasphemy and has been sentenced to 24 years in prison. I have raised this case personally with the Nigerian Foreign Minister, to whom I have stressed that defending freedom of religion or belief—including non-belief—is a human rights priority. We are following Mr Bala’s case closely, and last week officials from our high commission in Abuja again raised his case with the National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria.
I know that hon. Members have a keen interest in our broader work on such issues, so I will highlight three pieces of work. First, we are collaborating with and influencing international partners because we know that we cannot bring positive change alone. In March last year, we joined Australia and 50 other countries in a statement condemning the existence of the death penalty as a punishment for blasphemy. In July this year, we hosted the international ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief here in London. I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for the huge amount of work she did for that conference, which brought together more than 100 faith and belief leaders and human rights actors, and, I believe, delegations from 100 different Governments, including from around the Commonwealth. The sessions provided opportunities for participants to delve into the challenges created by blasphemy laws and their impact on freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief.
Secondly, we are actively working with multilateral organisations such as the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, which is chaired very ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton.
Thirdly, we are working with the G7 and the United Nations to ensure that states uphold their human rights obligations. Just over a fortnight ago, for example, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad spoke at the United Nations urging the international community to call out Iran for systematically targeting members of minority communities, to press Afghanistan to protect minorities who are targeted for their beliefs, to challenge the discriminatory provisions in Myanmar’s citizenship laws, and to hold China to account for its egregious human rights violations in Xinjiang.
Finally, we are working hard to bring diplomacy and development together on these issues. During the international ministerial conference, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad announced that the UK will extend the hand of partnership to countries that are prepared to take action on their freedom of religion or belief challenges, including by helping with funding or expertise to implement legislative changes. A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford, mentioned the need to make legislative changes in some areas. We are also working with Advocates for International Development, a UK-based non-governmental organisation, to match experts from across the UK with requests from willing Governments about implementing changes in blasphemy laws and access to justice, gender equality, health and education.
This is a complex area, but change is needed. The Government have a firm belief that no one should suffer because of what they believe or how they express their beliefs.
Brendan O'Hara
Before the Minister sits down, will she say a few words about what the Government have done to advocate on Mubarak Bala’s behalf directly with the Nigerian Government? When is the last time the Government spoke to the Nigerians about Mubarak?
Vicky Ford
As I said, I have raised the case directly with the Nigerian Foreign Minister, and officials from our high commission in Abuja again raised it with the National Human Rights Commission last week. We will continue to raise it, and I will certainly let the Foreign Minister know that the case of Mubarak Bala has been raised by Members of all parties. I thank them for their support on this journey.
Jim Shannon
Thank you, Sir Charles. You are always very generous.
I thank everyone for taking part. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) not just for participating in the debate but for all she does as special envoy. She mentioned the conference at which 88 countries were represented—that tells us a lot about reaching out and grasping the importance of this. She referred to many cases in Nigeria and Pakistan, where it is not going according to plan and blasphemy laws have been used in a very adversarial manner.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) is a dear friend of mine and we speak on these issues all the time. He underlined how blasphemy laws are used to target and discriminate against ethnic minority and religious groups. It is clear that an accusation can become a death sentence.
The hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) is always here when we have these debates—I am alongside him and he is alongside me. I thank him for his participation, and in particular for the quotation at the end of his speech. That was quite wonderful. That is where we all want to be through this debate—we want a better understanding and respect for each other. That is the way it should be.
I especially thank the Minister. It is genuinely always a pleasure to see her in her place. We had a very positive response from her on the engagement that she and the Government have with Commonwealth countries. We want not just words expressed but actions in place. I very much welcome the commitment to ensuring that the murderers of Deborah Samuel are held to account, and the Minister has had clear engagement with the Nigerian Government. I am pleased to see that the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, which the hon. Member for Congleton chairs, and the G7 and the UN uphold their human rights obligations, and Lord Ahmad’s work is tremendous.
I thank everyone for their participation—particularly everyone who made constructive recommendations. We hope through this debate to make a positive movement forward. There are those across the world who have no one to speak for them. We in this House today have been that voice for the voiceless, who must have someone to respond to them. Today, this House has done just that.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
It has been a privilege to chair such a well-informed debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered blasphemy laws and allegations in Commonwealth Countries.
Child Murders: Sentencing
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered sentencing for people convicted of murdering a child.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. The subject of this debate is a difficult one—a dark one. It is a subject that no one would rush to talk about, but I hope that I speak today for the families of children who have been murdered, and for future victims and their families, in calling for changes to our justice system, so that it actually delivers justice.
In my view, along with protecting the public, delivering justice should be the absolute focus of our justice system. Yes, of course we should seek to divert people from offending, particularly those guilty of less serious crimes, but delivering justice is in and of itself a moral good.
Child murder is one of the most horrific crimes and it must create unimaginable pain for the families who are left behind. I do not have children, but I am lucky enough to have a niece and a nephew, and they are the most precious members of my whole family. Millions of families across the whole country would join me in saying that protecting their children—keeping them safe—is the most important thing in the world, which we would give up anything, or do anything, to achieve.
It is fair to say that the pain that must come when someone destroys a family by breaking through that wall of protection is something that people never really get over. Just imagine how you would feel if it happened to your family. Along with the loss of innocent life, there is the loss of a future, not just for the child but for their family. The imagined achievements: watching them grow and go on to live their own life, and their own family—all of that is gone; in fact, it is stolen. That haunts people forever.
One such person is Elsie Urry. David McGreavy killed Elsie Urry’s children—Paul Ralph, who was four, Dawn, who was two, and nine-month-old Samantha—in 1973, at their Worcester home. Forgive the graphic nature of the details that I am about to give, but they need to be given—McGreavy strangled Paul Ralph, cut Dawn’s throat and fractured Samantha’s skull. The bodies of all three children were left on railings.
Campaigning on this issue has given me the privilege of speaking to Elsie and learning how what happened has affected her. I spoke to her again yesterday, ahead of this debate, and she explained that she feels that she has been left with a lifelong sentence herself. It should come as no surprise that she was horrified that McGreavy was released from prison in 2019. She said that at the time he was sentenced she was left with the impression that he would never get out of prison and that was the sole source of comfort for her.
It is likely to be the view of the overwhelming majority of the public that if someone brutally murders a child, they should spend the rest of their life in prison. There is sometimes a narrative that forgiveness and moving on are the answer. I welcome that narrative for people who feel that way, and I hope it gives them peace. However, I —and I think many other people—would get more solace from justice being done.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. As he rightly suggests, a child’s murder hurts every one of us in our heart and we feel for their parent. As a dad of three and a grandfather of six, I understand exactly what he means.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 states that the only murder charge against a child that warrants life imprisonment is the murder of a child following abduction, or a murder involving sexual or sadistic motivation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there needs to be greater emphasis on life imprisonment for child murders that take place within the household and that abduction, while a contributing factor, should not be the only reason for life imprisonment? Any child murderer should be in jail; that should be the only criterion. When the Minister responds to this debate, she should say very clearly that we need to have that in law, because that is what every parent wants—indeed, every non-parent also wants it.
Dr Mullan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I wholeheartedly agree with him; indeed, I will go on to explain how we have made a tiny step in that direction but are still falling far short of what he says should happen.
I return to the issue of how people feel when they or their family have been a victim of serious crime. After the murder of Sarah Everard—who, of course, was not a child at the time she was murdered, but obviously never stopped being a child to her loving parents—her family released the following statement:
“We are very pleased that Wayne Couzens has received a full life sentence and will spend the rest of his life in jail. Nothing can make things better, nothing can bring Sarah back, but knowing he will be imprisoned forever brings some relief.”
That is exactly how I would feel if any member of my family were murdered, not least if it was my niece or nephew. However, what is known as a whole-life order, rather than just a life sentence, is extremely rare in our justice system, whether the victim is a child or otherwise. Such a sentence was given to Couzens because the judge said that his use of his status as a police officer was of extreme seriousness.
Across our entire prison population, only around 60 people who are currently in custody are there for the rest of their life, under a whole-life order. That is the suggested sentence when someone is convicted of the murder of two or more persons involving a substantial degree of premeditation, abduction of the victims, or sexual or sadistic conduct; the murder of a child that involves the abduction of a child, or sexual or sadistic motivation, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned; the murder of a police or prison officer; a murder carried out for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause; or when there is a murder by an offender previously convicted of murder. I cannot know, but I suspect that Sarah’s family would have felt exactly the same about wanting to see her killer spend the rest of his life in prison regardless of whether or not he was a police officer and was viewed by the judge as meeting that threshold.
We frequently hear that a murderer has received a life sentence. That is often reported as their being “jailed for life”, but that is not what actually happens; in my view, that term is misleading. As I have said, to support the public understanding and media reporting of sentencing, we need to think about calling those sentences something other than a life sentence, because in reality, a life sentence means that someone is subject to recall to prison for life—that in theory, they could be in prison for life if they are never thought to be safe for release. The minimum term is actually the guaranteed sentence: in reality, people given a life sentence for murder serve an average of just 16 and a half years, which is very far from anyone’s definition of “life”. The idea that being on parole for life is in any way equivalent to being in prison is insulting to victims and their families.
During the time I have been campaigning on tougher sentencing, I have picked up on what I will describe as an intellectual snobbery towards people who think that longer sentences serve justice—that it is small-minded thinking; that to think it, a person must somehow be unable to realise the moral and intellectual heights that can be reached through forgiveness; that it is obviously the wrong approach because it does not allow for rehabilitation, as if by default, no matter the crime, victims and their families should care more about that than they do about justice. That is misguided thinking. A society in which people who follow the law see those who do not punished is a noble and valid society. Making sure that victims of crime experience life with some relief, no matter how small, should be our priority.
Those listening to my speech might be wondering what the point of today’s debate is. They might be aware that the point I am making—that child murderers should spend the rest of their lives in prison—is a deserving call that has already been responded to by the Government. The recently passed Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 brought in a whole-life tariff for the offence of child murder, removing the requirement for child abduction or sexual or sadistic motivation. That measure should have been what would save people like Elsie from experiencing the heartache she has suffered watching her children’s murderer walk free.
However, I am afraid that as welcome as that measure is, looking at the detail of it makes clear that it falls far short and will rarely do so, because it can be used only when a murder involves significant premeditation. That is why I have called for today’s debate: I am deeply unhappy that that decision undermines what would otherwise be a positive step forward in ensuring justice for victims and their families. Worse than not addressing an issue is giving the impression that we have done so, when in fact we have not. I am entirely unclear why the decision was taken to restrict the measure in that way. I would be grateful if in her response, the Minister would explain the Government’s thinking, because it only takes a casual observer to realise that that restriction is going to leave the public wondering whether in reality we have done what we pledged in our manifesto to do.
Elsie tells me that her recollection of the case is that the murder of her children was a spontaneous act, without premeditation. More recently, I am sure the Minister and others will remember the horrific murder of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes at the hands of Emma Tustin, tragically with the help of Arthur’s father, Thomas Hughes. Arthur suffered 130 injuries in the lead-up to his death at the age of six. He was poisoned with salt, emaciated, and forced to sleep on a hard floor and stand all day in a hallway. The amount of violence used on him produced forces on his body equivalent to a high-speed road traffic collision. Tustin was convicted of murdering Arthur in December last year, and was given a life sentence with a minimum term of 29 years, before our measure kicked in. Every person I have spoken to and everyone who contacted me about the case wanted to see her locked up for the rest of her life. However, in his sentencing remarks, the judge was clear: there was no premeditation in the case.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot talk about sentencing in this case.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I am sorry, but according to the Clerk, you cannot talk about sentencing. You can talk about the details of the case, Dr Mullan, but not the sentencing.
Dr Mullan
Okay—I had finished anyway. We know that if that crime were to be repeated tomorrow, the new measure we have passed would not apply, despite it being exactly the type of cruel, callous murder that the public would expect to be impacted.
Significant premeditation, not just premeditation, is a very high burden to reach. I have reviewed some recent cases where, in sentencing remarks, premeditation was raised. Mohamed Jama was found guilty of murder with an element of premeditation because he armed himself with a knife and actively sought out his victim as part of a plot to avenge the robbery of his brother. Jason Cooper was found guilty of murder with an element of premeditation because he killed his former partner after telling people he would do exactly that, encountering her at a pub and returning home to get a knife with which to attack her. Thomas Dunkley was found guilty of murder with an element of premeditation because he was found to have searched, before the murder took place, for terms such as:
“What is the fastest way for a human to bleed to death?”
and:
“How long does it take to bleed to death from a stab wound?”,
alongside looking at things he could buy with the money he stole from the deceased. I hope those examples make clear what a significant hurdle premeditation is, let alone significant premeditation.
Did Parliament, when passing the legislation, really mean to rule out cases such as Arthur’s? Did it mean that unless a murderer has a very clear plan to kill a child, we should be content to see them walk from prison? I am not content with that, and I do not believe that, had it been considered more closely, Parliament would be satisfied with it. Will the Minister say whether the Government remain happy with that position?
I became aware of the issue as the Bill that became the Act passed through the House, and I raised it with Ministers, although I recognised that such a complex Bill, to which much had been added, was not suited to yet further amendments. However, I am determined that we should fix the issue now. Quite rightly, the public will ask us to explain ourselves when—heaven forbid that it should happen, but sadly it is likely—another poor child is murdered and justice, as most of us would see it, does not prevail.
A cynic might conclude that an established view of the extremely high thresholds for the use of whole-life tariffs meant that, in reality, the caveat was introduced to continue the extreme restriction of its use while apparently satisfying a ministerial policy intention. I would not suggest that, of course, but others might. The impact assessment states that the Government estimated that, on average, some 10 adults per year commit the murder of a child. I am not clear whether that figure, or the policy development linked to it, took the caveat into account. It certainly does not seem to, and there is no mention of it in the impact assessment. If it seems that the Department was satisfied with the policy without the need for the “significant premeditation” caveat, it should not be such a burden to get it removed at the necessary legislative opportunity. Otherwise, we will have to answer difficult questions when the next case arises and angers public sentiment in a similar way.
The issue reflects, for me, a need for a wholesale recalibration of our sentencing through the courts and the guidelines we set. What length of time in prison represents justice for different crimes is entirely subjective; no one can give a right or wrong answer. However, I believe the justice system is there to serve the public and our sense of what merits justice. That is the grand bargain that we make when we say we will follow the rule of law and not take matters into our own hands. Of course, the white heat of pure anger and vengeance should not be our guide or starting point, but reasonable, moral, decent people feel continually let down by what we offer them as justice when they and their families are victims.
The Government can be proud of their overall record, in many ways, such as increasing Labour’s appalling halfway early release to two thirds for serious offenders. Again, I think most people would want that for all offenders, but it was progress none the less. We also introduced GPS tagging for some repeat offenders and brought in tougher sentencing options for child cruelty and dangerous driving. However, acting properly on child murder would have been a step forward that I thought was long overdue and welcome; my support for it was as strong, sadly, as my disappointment in how we ended up doing it.
We can and must do better. That is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for past victims and their families, to honour and recognise their suffering, and so that, when children are murdered, we can at the very least ensure that they and their families get justice.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rachel Maclean)
I very sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) for securing the debate—our first of the parliamentary term—and it is a real pleasure to be here to answer him and to see my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his accustomed place. As a former special constable, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich is well placed to campaign and speak out on these issues, based on his personal experience as well as his experience as an excellent constituency MP. He represents his constituents extremely well.
I commend my hon. Friend for his work to stand up for victims, to bring such issues to the attention of parliamentarians and to campaign for tougher sentences. I completely agree that sentencing fitting the crime is vital for public confidence in the justice system. I know that, as an active and engaged member of the Justice Committee, he will have a lot to say on that in the future. I very much look forward to working with him as well.
All murders are terrible acts, but those where the victim is a child are particularly so. The murder of those most vulnerable in our society causes extreme grief and devastation for loved ones left behind. As a parent, it is devastating to listen to the cases set out by my hon. Friend. I know society feels it is necessary to ensure that those responsible for those terrible crimes are properly punished.
It may be helpful if I set out how the sentencing framework in England and Wales responds to the murder of children. Sir Charles, I hope I can abide by your guidance but would welcome your intervention if I fail to do so. I will start by saying that all murder convictions must result in a life sentence. When that life sentence is imposed, the court must determine the minimum period to be served in custody for the purposes of punishment and deterrence. Only when that period has been served in full may the offender be considered for release by the Parole Board. The board will release a prisoner only if it satisfied that it is safe to do so—I will come later to how we have toughened up the Parole Board. The judge will calculate the minimum term by selecting the appropriate starting point as set out in legislation, namely schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
When sentencing adult offenders, the starting points are 15, 25 or 30 years or a whole-life order. Whole life orders are the most severe penalty available in our justice system and someone sentenced to one will spend the rest of their life in prison without the prospect of release. Judges must then consider relevant aggravating and mitigating factors and adjust the minimum term accordingly.
Of course, offenders serving a life sentence may remain in prison beyond the minimum term set by the court, and some may never be released if the Parole Board does not think it is safe to do so. If and when the offender is released, he or she will remain on licence for the rest of their life and will be subject to recall to prison at any time if they breach the conditions of their life sentence. A life sentence, therefore, remains in force for the whole of the offender’s life and it is an indeterminate sentence under which the offender could spend their life in prison.
Coming on to sentencing for the murder of children, which my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich spoke about, the framework rightly regards the murder of children as particularly serious. Schedule 21 sets out a number of circumstances where a whole-life order is the starting point when considering what minimum term should be imposed by the court. The legislation provides that the murder of a child should have such a starting point if it involves sexual or sadistic motivation, or the abduction of the child.
My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that the PCSC Act strengthens schedule 21 by expanding the range of circumstances in which a whole-life order is a starting point when the court is determining how long an offender convicted of murder should spend in prison. That means that the premeditated murder of a child now has a whole-life order as its staring point. Some instances of child murder might also fall within the other circumstances that apply to victims of all ages where a whole-life order is a starting point, for example, terrorist murders or murder committed by someone already convicted of murder.
Judges still have discretion to depart from those points and to impose a life sentence with a minimum term if they consider that to be the most appropriate sentence, having considered all the circumstances. However, it is right that they must first consider a whole-life order when making that decision. Alternatively, it is possible for the court to regard any offending as exceptionally serious and to impose a whole-life order in a case in which the circumstances are not listed as those where such a punishment would usually be the starting point.
Where a murder of a child does not meet the circumstances listed in the schedule for which there is a whole-life order as a starting point, the minimum term will be set according to the remaining starting points, depending on the facts of the case. There are aggravating factors applicable to all murders that could result in an increase to the minimum term due to the victim being a child. They include the vulnerability of the victim due to age, and where the murderer abused a position of trust.
It is important to note that through the PCSC Act, we have ensured that the courts have the fullest range of sentencing powers available to deal appropriately with those who commit other offences against children. It is worth Members noting and remembering that we brought forward Tony’s law, which was named in reference to young Tony Hudgell, who as a baby was abused to such an extent by his birth parents that he is severely disabled. I have had the great privilege of meeting his foster parents, and they are an incredibly inspirational and brave family. I pay tribute to them for all the work they have done.
The 2022 Act increased the maximum penalty for the offences of cruelty to a person under 16 and of causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to suffer serious physical harm from 10 to 14 years of imprisonment. It increased the maximum penalty for causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to die from 14 years to life imprisonment.
I fully recognise that my hon. Friend has kindly noted the progress made by the Government, but I recognise too that he would like a lot of these measures to go a lot further.
I do not wish to stray and will follow the strictures of the Chair, but may I make a point about judicial independence? My hon. Friend mentioned the case of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes. My understanding is that the judge ruled that those vile acts, although horrific, as my hon. Friend described, were not committed with intent to murder and that there was no premeditation. In our system, judicial independence is a cornerstone of our parliamentary democracy, and we, as politicians, cannot and should not pre-empt sentencing.
Let me refer to the case of David McGreavy, which my hon. Friend also mentioned. It is highly likely that McGreavy would now be given a whole-life order because he murdered three children with the sadistic motivation that was a feature of the case. If a judge determined that an offender was dangerous and the circumstances of the offence were sufficiently serious, a life sentence for that offence would be mandatory.
It is important that we turn for a few moments to the role of the Parole Board, which determines the end of an offender’s term in prison. The Government published a root and branch review of the parole system in March, setting out a number of reforms to the parole release process. It was felt that that process needed to be improved, that it should be tougher and that we should look to see where we could improve the system. The reforms will establish a top-tier cohort of offenders who have committed the worst offences, including murder and causing or allowing the death of a child. The top-tier cohort will be subject to increased ministerial scrutiny at the point of release, with new powers to prevent release if Ministers are not satisfied that the new and stricter release test has been met. That means that in future all prisoners who have committed the murder of a child or who have received a parole-eligible sentence for causing or allowing the death of a child will be subject to additional scrutiny at the point of release. We have committed to legislate for those reforms as soon as parliamentary time allows. Those reforms will be broadly welcomed by the public because they will be seen to improve confidence in the system.
Cases of child murder are rightly punished severely by the courts, and those who are convicted face long prison sentences, possibly with no prospect of release. That is the right thing to do. The Government have increased the powers available to the courts by raising the maximum penalties for acts of cruelty and extending the list of circumstances in which a whole-life order is a starting point to ensure that courts are able to impose severe penalties.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her response to the debate, and I think that the general public across the United Kingdom, particularly people in England and Wales, will welcome what she is saying. Following on from the contribution made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), if someone beats a child over time and he or she does not die, but then one day that person beats the child and it does die, surely that should be taken as murder even though the intention at the beginning was not to murder, because it was certainly murder at the end. I am following the Minister’s line of argument here, and I am looking for clarification, please.
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Gentleman has gone to the heart of the issue of premeditation, which is relatively new with respect to the PCSC Act and how we have framed the law around sentencing. If I may, I will write to him on the issue in detail. I hope he is sympathetic that I have not been in this ministerial role for a long time, and I do not want to mislead anybody. I want to give the hon. Gentleman the precise facts and the legal position.
It is vital, and right, that we have increased the powers available to the courts in raising the maximum penalties for acts of cruelty and extending the list of circumstances in which a whole-life order is the starting point to ensure that courts can impose severe penalties for such serious offending. It has been a pleasure to speak about this important topic and to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, as well as my friend the hon. Member for Strangford. I look forward to continuing to work with my hon. Friend to do whatever we can to increase public confidence in sentencing and the criminal justice system.
Question put and agreed to.
Energy Costs in Wales
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered energy costs in Wales.
On our first day back in Parliament this term, this debate on energy costs in Wales is hugely timely. We are facing a national emergency. People are scared, cold, and paying the ultimate price for the energy crisis. I am therefore grateful that the Minister is in his place to listen to us discuss the very real issues that people are facing across the country, but it would be remiss of me to start without calling out the recent incompetent actions from the UK Government. In just a few short weeks, this Tory Government have plummeted millions of people into hardship and misery—the choice between heating and eating, going to bed cold and hungry or giving their child their last tin of food. The shockingly mishandled emergency Budget was inexcusable. It has seen the pound plummet, energy costs spiral, mortgages pulled, interest rates shoot up—and for what? Unfunded tax cuts for the richest 1% in society and bigger bankers’ bonuses.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. In addition to that tirade of comments, will she recognise that the energy price guarantee is the most generous across all the major developed nations in Europe?
Anna McMorrin
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention, but providing that is the very least that could be done in the face of all this incompetence, quite frankly.
The result of this reckless decision will be felt by households across the country for years to come. It is always the most vulnerable who pay the highest price for the political choices made by this UK Government. In Wales, people are worried sick. Thankfully, our Welsh Labour Government have shielded so many from the very worst, but the crippling energy crisis is hard to undo when action from Westminster is worsening by the day. The human cost of such decisions cannot be overstated. At the launch of the Institute of Health Equity’s fuel poverty report last month, Professor Sinha said there is “no doubt” that children will die this winter. Damaged organs and respiratory illnesses are just some of the many long-term health impacts that people will face, and the trauma of going to bed cold and hungry will stay with someone for life.
I was speaking to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children just this morning, and it told me how heartbreaking it is to receive calls through its helpline from children who really do not know what to do or how to help their parents, as they witness them struggle to make ends meet, often while living in cold, damp and mouldy conditions. I, too, receive heartbreaking calls from struggling parents just trying to do their best, and from distraught constituents torn between losing their home and losing their business. A pub in the heart of Cardiff North told me that it literally cannot afford to keep the lights on and is moving to using candlelight after receiving a £24,000 energy bill. My constituent Rebecca, a talented jeweller and silversmith, runs a small business on top of doing three other jobs. She faces a sixfold increase in her electricity bill. Her partner, Gareth, who contacted me worried sick, said, “What are we working for if not a better future?”
Well, that better future is being carved out by our Welsh Labour Government, with £51 million of targeted support for those who need it most. Measures include doubling the winter fuel support payment, cost of living support payments, £4 million for fuel vouchers, a heat fund to support those on prepayment meters, and the roll-out of universal free school meals. That is the difference that a Labour Government make. The Welsh Labour Government understand the human cost of this crisis. Perhaps the Prime Minister should pick up the phone to our First Minister for the first time after all.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for securing the debate and for the very important points that she is making. It is right that we debate this issue. One of the big issues that we face is that the UK is not particularly self-sufficient when it comes to electricity generation; we are the second largest net importer of electricity in Europe. Meanwhile, Wales produces double the electricity that it consumes. We are a superpower, in European terms; no other country is close to the generation and consumption levels of Wales. The question that occurs to me is: how can we use that strength to safeguard our own people in Wales from the fuel poverty that they face?
Anna McMorrin
The hon. Member makes exactly the right point. We want to hear from the Minister as to why that challenge is not being addressed. This week is also Hospice Care Week, and the families supported by Tŷ Hafan and Tŷ Gobaith—the two children’s hospices in Wales—really are the ones on the frontline in this energy crisis. Tŷ Hafan is facing a sixfold increase in energy costs at a time when it is also facing rising demand for its services. It could never have foreseen what was to come, and it is the families who rely on its support that suffer. The Welsh Government have provided support to the hospice with the funding uplift. However, the Chancellor is yet even to respond to its letter. The Business Secretary’s response was to assure hospices that they would be prioritised for additional support. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case? The evidence clearly suggests the opposite.
Let me explain to the Minister the human cost of continued inaction. My constituent Emma has a son called Jack, who has cerebral palsy. Emma does not have the option of not using energy. She relies on it for Jack’s lifesaving equipment. Emma sadly lost her son Tom, Jack’s twin, to the deadly disease. It is families such as Emma’s who face nearly £600 more a month in bills. The support that Tŷ Hafan provides to families is invaluable. Will the Minister tell those families whether they will get an emergency assistance payment, and when that specialist support will be given to the hospices on which they so heavily rely?
The chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), said that people should just get better jobs. Emma is Jack’s full-time carer, living off just £850 a month in universal credit, topped up with a carer’s allowance. How would she manage? Will the Minister tell Emma whether the Government intend to uprate benefits in line with current inflation rates, so that she and her family can live and not just barely survive?
The UK Government’s attitude towards hospices in Wales reflects their attitude towards Wales in general—our organisations and people alike. It is an attitude of disdain and neglect. The fact that the Government are planning for energy blackouts says it all. In short, it means that people will die. What action will the UK Government take to ensure that families of seriously ill children, who rely on that lifesaving equipment at home, have access to a secure and constant supply of energy—or will the Government have blood on their hands?
Support for energy bills only goes so far. Too many homes are poorly insulated and their bills will rise at a far higher rate. Since 2011, the Welsh Labour Government’s warm homes programme has invested more than £400 million in more than 67,000 homes to improve home energy efficiency across Wales. Under Labour’s warm homes plan, we aim to insulate 19 million homes in a decade across the whole of the UK.
In a display of utter incompetency, this Prime Minister has defied her own official advice and blocked plans for a public information campaign asking people to save energy over the winter. Apparently, she is ideologically opposed to that. Will the Minister confirm whether he is too? Is he ideologically opposed to urging people to keep an eye on usage, saving households £8.4 billion and avoiding blackouts?
Insulation measures are not just about cost. Old, poorly insulated homes are more likely to be cold, mouldy or damp, which can cause significant long-term physical and mental health problems. It is astounding that councils are now forced to open warm hubs. Just yesterday, our Labour-run Cardiff Council launched its warm welcome space; anyone who is struggling to heat their home can go to the local hub or library, to be greeted with a warm welcome and a free hot drink—but that is shocking.
We must remember that this crisis is caused by a dependency on oil and gas. It will not be solved by increasing dependency. Gas costs nine times more than renewables. This Tory Government are intent on locking us into a fossil fuel era, with high bills and an ever worsening climate crisis. The Prime Minister refuses to understand that the climate crisis and energy crisis go hand in hand. The Government cannot tackle one without tackling the other. I know well that the Minister agrees, and I would like to hear him say so today.
Rising seas and extreme weather events are costing lives. Our younger generations are being robbed of their future. Climate change presents an opportunity to change the way we live. Labour is committed to a great British energy company that will deliver clean power by 2030, saving UK households £93 billion over the rest of the decade. What was the UK Government’s answer? To lift the ban on fracking—yet another broken manifesto pledge to deliver the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth.
Rest assured, the ban on fracking in Wales is still firmly in place, and the Welsh Government will do everything in their power to pick up the pieces where the Tory Government have fallen woefully short, whether that is for businesses at the heart of our community that risk closing their doors for good due to spiralling, unaffordable energy prices; for people like my constituent, who tragically told me that his elderly mother felt she would be better off dead than forced to pay such astronomical energy prices; or for those who are cutting back on their essential groceries or relying on food banks just to get by.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
In an earlier comment, my hon. Friend mentioned prepayment meters. For those who use prepayment meters, £3.50 of every £10 that they top up goes on charges, and South Wales has one of highest rates in the UK. Does she agree that we really need to address that issue?
Anna McMorrin
Absolutely. It is an area we need to focus on, and I hope the Minister will have an answer to that issue today.
The examples I have given show the real human cost of the energy crisis. I hope that this Conservative Government for once bear that in mind, instead of fighting one another like cats and dogs. The people paying the true cost of the energy crisis in Wales must not be forgotten or sidelined.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) on securing this important debate. I look forward to the contributions of all Members, because this is a serious issue that needs addressing in a serious way. In the spirit in which I congratulated the hon. Lady on securing the debate, I am bit disappointed by the party political tone that it has taken. These are genuine, serious issues that need addressing. Constituents are looking to politicians to find the best response to a genuine energy supply crisis and its sources, which we will come to in a moment. I am disappointed that the debate has been so party political so far, but I will try to move it on in a way that might be helpful to constituents who listen.
Anna McMorrin
I think the right hon. Gentleman failed to hear what I actually said. I was clarifying what the different Governments provide and setting out the human cost of what is happening because of the political choices made by the UK Government and this Prime Minister. I sincerely hope he can understand that.
Alun Cairns
I will respond to some of the points that have been made, but we need to recognise that the absolute cause of the challenge is the war in Ukraine and Putin’s aggression. Anyone who seeks to weaponise the increase in energy prices for political ends is undermining the war effort and Ukraine’s right to defend its nation. It is a serious issue, but that does not mean that we do not need to react.
The Government are reacting. We need to recognise some of the things they are doing and congratulate them, but there will be other areas where we want to press for further support. That is an intelligent way to pursue a debate, rather than saying that everything politicians in Cardiff Bay are doing is right and everything those in Whitehall are doing is wrong. That is simply not credible and it is not the case. I am disappointed that the war in Ukraine is being weaponised in this way.
Just weeks ago, we saw the explosions at Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, which were clearly attacks, although we have no certainty about the reasons for them or their source. They have had an impact on supplies across Europe, but thankfully supplies to the UK do not come from Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, and are therefore much more secure. I underline my interest as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for energy security. It would be helpful for us all to recognise that energy is traded at a multi-national, if not a global, level. That is part of the complexity of the situation, rather than the simplicity that has been described.
Constituents want to know exactly what support they will get. Everyone will get a grant of £400 in addition to a council tax rebate of £150 for properties in bands A to D. There are also additional payments, including a cost of living payment of £650 for benefit claimants, a one-off payment of £300 for pensioners for heating, and a disability cost of living payment of £150. Those payments will alleviate the situation and make sure that some people are able to keep the fires burning. They may have formed the impression that they could end up in an extremely unfortunate situation, but they may well be able to avoid that, depending on their individual circumstances.
The energy price guarantee announced a couple of weeks ago is an extremely welcome measure, and it would be helpful for the Opposition to recognise that. I press the hon. Member for Cardiff North to acknowledge that it is the most generous package that has been offered across Europe. I am happy to be corrected if the hon. Lady wishes to intervene, but independent sources say it is the most generous package in Europe, which means that people in similar circumstances in Europe will find themselves worse off. I am not saying that is a good thing; it is not a good thing. More needs to be done to support everyone—not only across Europe, but well beyond—because the conflict in Ukraine has created a global challenge.
The energy consumption of an average property will cost £2,500. There is a lot of misunderstanding about that. People will pay depending on their energy consumption and that figure is an average cost, which is provided as a guide. It is a significant increase, but lower than it would otherwise have been without the energy price guarantee, and the additional payments will support people and allow them to cope with those increases.
I find it difficult to believe that everything the Welsh Government are doing is right and everything Whitehall is doing is wrong. On the one hand, the hon. Member for Cardiff North claimed that people were living in cold, damp and uninsulated homes—and many are and we need to recognise that—but then seemed to champion the insulating programme and schemes that the Welsh Government have been pursuing. It cannot be one or the other; we must recognise that it is a complex situation and that people are finding themselves in difficult circumstances.
I find it difficult that the wider public debate makes such an issue of a public information campaign. This debate could serve as a public information campaign in itself if it were conducted in a reasonable and intelligent way. We need to recognise that this issue is rightly dominating the news and people should be able to interpret that large increases in energy prices will mean consumption needs to be managed to prevent cost of living challenges. In addition, information is being made available by the Energy Saving Trust, Ofgem and so many other agencies and charitable organisations. I would much prefer that the money that would have been spent on a public information campaign is spent on supporting people to reduce their bills, rather than on duplicating and repeating what we could do and what is available freely on the internet.
I ask the Minister for guidance on two points. I have already highlighted the domestic levels of support that are available, and they are significant, but we need further clarity on park homes. It is not clear how they will be able to benefit, because of how their meters work compared with others. I recognise that this is the first day that Parliament is sitting and therefore it has not been easy to communicate all the messages that need to be communicated, but there are a number of park homes in my constituency and across the whole of the UK—Wales possibly has a disproportionate number of park homes—so further clarity would be helpful. Reassuring messages have been given, but it is helpful to have the mechanics of how it should work.
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman raised this point because I asked a written question on this issue and was referred to an answer to another Member. That answer was not particularly clear to me, so when my constituents ask me how they will receive the support I am unable to provide that answer. I am sure that, like me, the right hon. Gentleman would like the Minister to clarify that today.
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to the hon. Member for underlining that point. I recognise that it is a complex situation. There are so many facets, which is why, again, we need to have a reasonable debate to address these serious issues. Until now people in park homes will not have had much clarity from this debate, and I look to the Minister to provide it, but it is not a straightforward situation.
I seek greater clarity on the level of support and I press the Minister to look again at extending support for off-grid properties. Many residents in my constituency—I declare an interest as one of them—do not have the privileges or benefits of mains gas and therefore depend on either liquefied petroleum gas or oil. We need to recognise that there is a standard volatility in that marketplace, and off-grid properties may have benefited when oil prices were extremely low during the covid period, at less than $20 a barrel of oil—I ensured that I filled my tank up at that time—compared with the 85p, 86p or even 90p a litre that is available now. I was talking about $19 a barrel, but that was also 19p a litre at the time. It is now up to 90p per litre of oil, which people off-grid have to use, and LPG will have a similar volatility. I hope the Minister will give that greater consideration or at least provide some hope that there will be further support.
There is a final area of support to which I hope the Minister will be able to bring some clarity—not necessarily now, because it is quite a complex picture, but certainly by providing greater information or tables online. The Government website sets out examples of different sorts of businesses and how they will benefit, from the average corner shop or pub to larger organisations. It explains the types of approach and savings that they would make. I looked for specific examples of numbers to be provided according to the market rate. One grocery business in a rural area in my constituency was paying 21p per kWh; now, at the market rate, it is paying £1.26 per kWh. When a business seeks to negotiate through a broker for guarantees of the level of Government intervention and how much that will be, the broker makes the case—as do energy providers; I have spoken to some—that they do not know how much the Government discount is specifically until they accept the contract, as that is when they can confirm it. That does not seem to be the most reasonable position.
I am not saying the Government are to blame for that, but I suspect greater clarity over the numbers will help businesses in my constituency and elsewhere to understand what exactly the discount is. It is in the region of 40% in some cases, while it is less in others. It depends on use. Clarity is needed to provide scrutiny and ensure the most understanding. Although the discount is 40%, if someone happens to have come off a fixed-term contract and moved from 21p up to about 80p, that is still a significant increase.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Betts. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly today. I congratulate my near constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), on calling this important debate.
Although we have seen a new Prime Minister appointed in recent weeks, when it comes to this 12-year-old Tory Government it is the same old story. Like people throughout Wales and the United Kingdom, the people of Newport West are looking for proper action to support them as they face rising energy costs. There is nothing new about the Tory fantasy of trickle-down economics, and there is nothing new about a Tory who, when asked “Who pays?”, answers “You: the working people of Britain.”
In her first Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said she was against a windfall tax, as she did during her leadership campaign, during that wasteful summer of inward-looking Tory politics. My constituents want to know why the Prime Minister remains so committed to protecting the £170 billion of excess profits of the oil and gas giants—profits that they did not expect and that the companies have actually suggested should be used to mitigate the effects of this energy and cost of living crisis. Because of the Prime Minister’s decision, the people of Newport West and others throughout the country will now have to pay the bill for this Tory cost of living crisis.
It is worth remembering what the former Chancellor, Mr Osborne, said in 2008: that profligate borrowing could provoke a run on sterling, or require a rise in interest rates that would plunge Britain deeper into recession. I think some chickens are coming home to roost now.
I recently had a call from a constituent—a retired colliery worker—in Bassaleg. Like so many in Newport West, he has paid his taxes and never missed a bill. However, as we approach winter, the rising cost of energy is putting a serious strain on his finances. He told my team that it is simply not fair that ordinary people are being forced to foot the bill while the energy companies laugh all the way to the bank, saying:
“My monthly direct debit has just gone from £166 to £320. We are a two adult, two children family on average wages and are not able to handle such huge hikes in bills. Would appreciate it if you could look to address or mitigate this for us as a community.”
That is why I am here today.
If the average family in Newport West are seeing a doubling of utility bills, our country and our economy are in for some very difficult months ahead. That sits at the door of this Government. Rather than taking real action to pay for proper support, they have simply shifted the bill on to working people. When families and public services need every penny they can get, our Prime Minister, with the same old agenda, seems to think that now is the right time to protect Shell’s excess profits and give Amazon a tax cut. I say to the Minister: it is not. It is time for the Government to lead, to act and to properly support those most in need.
Over recent months, I have worked with local people on the issue of energy payment rebates for park home residents, as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns). I have received a significant amount of correspondence from residents in Lighthouse caravan park in Newport West, and have worked with local people to clarify whether people in park homes would be able to benefit from any UK Government support schemes. My concern was and remains that there is no comprehensive and co-ordinated approach for all who need help to heat their homes and pay their bills. I have just been sitting in the Chamber listening to the Chancellor answer a question on that very subject, but sadly his answer was more confusion and uncertainty, and I am no better off now.
That confusion stands in stark contrast to the action of the Welsh Government. I welcome the Welsh Government fuel support scheme, and many people in Newport West do too. Eligible households can claim a one-off £200 cash payment from their local authority to provide support towards paying fuel bills. Importantly, that is in addition to the winter fuel payment offered by the UK Government. The payment will be available to all eligible energy customers, regardless of how they pay for fuel. That includes those who make payments on a prepayment meter by direct debit, those who pay quarterly and those who use off-grid fuel.
The scheme is part of the Welsh Labour Government’s £90 million support package to address immediate pressures on living costs. The fuel support scheme was launched with the explicit aim of reducing the impact of the rising cost of energy and the cost of living crisis. It is targeted at low-income households, and the number of households that are eligible and in need of help is to be extended.
We know that the winter months can be the most difficult time of the year. Like the Welsh Labour Government, I do not believe that families in Newport West or any other part of the United Kingdom should have to choose between heating and eating.
Jonathan Edwards
Can I take the hon. Lady back to the windfall tax? I do not think a windfall tax would pay for all the energy schemes, but it would definitely make a significant contribution to the public intervention that will be required. The reality is that even the oil executives are mildly in favour of it: BP announced a few months ago that a windfall tax would not make any difference to its investment plans over the next 10, 15 and 20 years.
Ruth Jones
The hon. Gentleman puts it far more eloquently than me. Absolutely—these people are actively saying, “These are excess profits that we did not expect, so they should be used to mitigate the problem.”
I say to residents in Newport West and across Wales that the Welsh Government’s scheme is open to households in which the applicant or their partner is in receipt of one of the qualifying benefits at any time between 1 September 2022 and 31 January 2023. Folks in Newport West can get in touch with my office if they want or need support with the application process.
If we are expecting working people out in the country to tighten their belts, I urge Ministers to wake up and make sure the oil and gas companies pay their share too. That is what we are here to do, and if the Government do not want to do that, they should make way for a Labour Government who will.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and to speak in this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) on securing it. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones). I join her and the right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) in urging the Minister to bring forward greater clarity on park homes.
I will concentrate my remarks on a particular aspect of the energy crisis: off-grid homes. The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that we need to go further in the support that is offered to them. I appreciate that, on a UK-wide basis, the proportion of domestic properties that are not connected to the mains gas grid may seem immaterial or quite modest, but in certain areas of the country the concentration of such properties is significant. Across Wales, 19% of domestic households are not connected to the mains gas grid, but in more rural constituencies such as Gwynedd that rises to 49% of the housing stock. In my Ceredigion constituency it rises to 74%, so it is a pressing concern for many of my constituents. Although the energy price guarantee offers some Welsh Government support for those who are connected to the mains gas grid, people often read the bulletins and announcements and realise that it does not apply to them, or at least not to their gas or heating bills.
It is important to put on the record that, despite the volatility in the heating oil and LPG markets, there has been a steady increase in the prices that consumers have had to pay. It is always a bit dangerous to quote average heating oil prices, given the vicissitudes of that market, but the average price per 1,000 litres of heating oil increased from £351 in August 2020 to £491 in August 2021 and then £896 in August 2022. I note the great volatility in that market and also the fact that prices peaked at £1,108 back in June, at the beginning of the summer, when some people look to buy and fill their tanks, but the trend has been of considerable increases in heating oil prices, which is having a serious impact on many of my constituents.
I have sadly received many messages from constituents who are having to resort to quite drastic measures to reduce their consumption of heating oil. I have lost count of the number of people who have told me that they have taken to having cold showers in the morning. I have also come across many people who have tried to keep down the cost of electricity by resorting to investing in solar-powered garden lights to help a little in the evenings. These are very drastic measures. People are looking at every way possible to reduce their bills but are still finding it impossible to keep the heating on as we enter the winter months.
Much has been made of the impact of the energy crisis and rising costs on businesses, and it is important to highlight the added impact on businesses that are not connected to the mains gas grid. For example, I have been contacted by quite a few hospitality businesses in Ceredigion that have quoted increases to their average fuel costs of 200% to 300%, while a cheesemaker in my constituency has seen the price of running his business double over the last 12 months. Sadly, such increases are forcing these businesses to make very difficult staffing decisions; indeed, I know of a few that have closed their doors for the winter. One hopes that these will just be temporary and not permanent closures, but it is important to stress that a number of viable businesses are struggling to absorb the spike in heating oil and LPG prices.
One suggestion, made by counterparts from Northern Ireland, is for the Government to offer greater support to off-grid homes and businesses by introducing a voucher scheme. I thank Social Democratic and Labour party Members from Northern Ireland for pressing that as a potential solution, which has a lot to recommend it. They have suggested that the Government could introduce a voucher for 1,000 litres of heating oil or the equivalent volume of LPG. Some might ask, “Why 1,000 litres?” The answer is that Certas Energy has estimated that the average UK household uses around 27,000 kWh of energy per year, which roughly equates to 1,800 litres of oil. At current average prices, 1,000 litres would cost around £890, which I concede is not an insignificant amount of money, but it compares very favourably with the expected savings of around £1,000 to those households that will be eligible for both elements of the energy price guarantee—the electricity side and the mains gas side.
The Government have made statements previous to this week about ensuring a commensurate level of support, and we could explore further the idea of a voucher scheme for those in off-grid properties. It would offer a fair level of support for those on the gas grid and also those who are not connected to it. For the sake of clarity, if that were rolled out in Wales, for example, we would be talking about 275,000 properties. Again, that is not an insignificant number but, when considered in the larger scheme of things, it is something that the Government could do, and potentially with some speed.
In considering off-grid properties, I also wish to raise how this debate emphasises the need to bring forward not only immediate support to address the short-term pressures we face but mid-term to longer-term solutions. Energy-efficiency measures have already been mentioned; the Energy Saving Trust reports that it is typically far more expensive to heat an off-grid home, which creates a significant problem for the rural poor. Sadly, because of the nature of the housing stock in Wales, particularly in rural areas, the average energy performance certificate rating across the entire country is D. To reduce our vulnerability to further price shocks down the line, there should now be a real push in respect of the mid to long term to invest in energy-efficiency measures.
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. There is a big role to play for the Welsh Government and, indeed, the partnership agreement between Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government. My cursory reading of the agreement is that it contains nothing specifically on energy efficiency. Of course, the agreement was composed before the crisis. I hope there are mechanisms in the agreement whereby both parties can look again at the programme of government and focus on what we can do in Wales.
Ben Lake
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There is an opportunity, through the co-operation agreement, for the Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru to focus their efforts on improving the energy efficiency of the Welsh housing stock. A year or so ago, Wales’s Future Generations Commissioner reported that it would take around £3.6 billion of investment over 10 years to bring the entire Welsh housing stock up to EPC band C. Were we able to achieve that—there is now an important case to be made for accelerating such an intervention—it would save Welsh households an average of £418 a year on their energy bills. Of course, those savings were estimated based on the energy prices a year and a half to two years ago; one wonders how much more of a saving could be realised were we to pursue energy-efficiency measures today.
The Energy Efficiency Infrastructure Group has added to the calls for energy efficiency, saying that to bring up the EPC level of all UK housing stock would provide significant annual energy-cost savings of £7.5 billion. I appreciate that such measures would not offer any solace in the short term, but it is now time that we consider how we can address some of these issues in the mid to long term to avoid falling into a similar situation—dare I say it?—next winter.
Finally, another aspect that bears repetition and further consideration is the recommendation from the Federation of Small Businesses to look again at support for renewable-energy installations for small businesses. The FSB has suggested that vouchers worth £5,000 could be made available to small and medium-sized businesses to spend on qualifying energy-saving products and services and renewable-energy installations. I look around the Chamber and recognise a few rural Members of Parliament; they may have been approached by farmers and agricultural businesses that have pointed out that they have a lot of roof space that might well be suitable for the installation of solar panels. Even if that cuts just the energy consumption and grid dependence of those farmers and businesses, it will still contribute to the wider effort to reduce our energy vulnerability to fossil fuels and the vicissitudes of the market.
There is an opportunity here. There needs to be further consideration of the short-term support for properties that are not connected to the mains gas grid. In looking at the example of homes such as those in Ceredigion, 74% of which are not connected to the mains gas grid, I also emphasise how important it is that we do not lose sight of the mid to long-term measures and the benefits of a properly invested energy-efficiency programme.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Beth Winter was not present for the beginning of the debate, but she gave advance notice to me, as Chair, that she would be late because she was in a Delegated Legislation Committee. Given that no others wish to catch my eye at this point, I now call Beth Winter.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Thank you for allowing me to speak, Mr Betts, and thank you to everyone present. As you explained, I came from a DLC as soon as possible, so diolch yn fawr. This issue is extremely close to my heart, which is why I really wanted to speak in the debate. In my constituency, we have been doing a lot of work on the cost of living crisis, which I will cover in my contribution.
With their intervention on the retail price for energy, the Government are clearly paying lip service to people’s concerns and failing to alleviate the misery they are causing. We have to be clear: the energy price cap is rising and bills are going up under the newly elected Prime Minister. Despite the Prime Minister and the Chancellor saying that they have intervened to reduce bills, what has really happened? Under the previous Tory Prime Minister, the price cap went up by £693 in April; under this new Conservative Prime Minister, it went up by another £529 last week. That is driving inflation to a 40-year high and creating extreme hardship in communities such as mine in the Cynon valley. Figures for Wales show that, in October 2020, 14% of households were living in fuel poverty. If we use those figures to model the impact of April’s price cap rise, up to 45%, or almost half, of all households are likely to be in fuel poverty.
I undertook a cost of living survey of constituents just before the summer. The stories they told me were truly harrowing, especially in terms of the mental health impact that the cost of living crisis is having, which cannot be overestimated. For example, one constituent said:
“It is affecting my sleep. I am worrying constantly. I keep watching my gas and electric meter.”
Most respondents said they were struggling to pay their energy bills, and almost three quarters said they would cut down significantly on heating in the next 12 months. That is unacceptable. That is a political choice.
As others have said, small businesses are struggling too. A local business owner told me recently that the combined gas and electric bill from the supplier was estimated to be in excess of £25,000. The owner was in floods of tears and had no idea how she was going to be able to continue running her business. That is the reality of the impact of the politically motivated cost of living crisis in this country.
Alun Cairns
The hon. Lady is making some interesting points about the real impact and cost for businesses, individuals and families, but I am not quite sure what she is asking for. Is she asking the Government to intervene for the entirety and to return the prices to what they were 12 months ago, say, bearing in mind that there is a global energy crisis as a result of the conflict in Ukraine?
Beth Winter
I am about to offer some solutions to the crisis. If the right hon. Gentleman can bear with me, I will answer his question in my speech.
Briefly, the Welsh Government are doing everything they can to support people through the cost of living crisis. They have made an array of announcements to support people, including a £200 fuel support payment, in addition to the winter fuel payment offered by the UK Government; a £150 cost of living payment; £4 million to support people on prepayment meters—not on mains gas—who are facing hardship; and of course the discretionary assistance fund. However, fair funding from the UK Government to Wales is needed to meet people’s needs; it is Westminster that has to step up and support our communities.
Beth Winter
No, I will not give way. The Chancellor has not yet responded to Welsh Finance Minister Rebecca Evans’s recent letter asking for a meeting. That shows that Wales is being treated with contempt.
Labour at Westminster is clear that, unlike the Tories, we would not have allowed the energy price cap to rise at all this autumn. Labour has proposed a fully costed and funded package of Government support. Our “Warm Homes for All” plan and investment in sustainable British energy, funded from our climate investment pledge, will tackle the climate crisis, strengthen our energy security, create good jobs in new industries and cut bills for good. There will be up-front costs to those measures but, as the Office for Budget Responsibility has stated, not acting will cost far more in damage to the climate and economic security.
We have wind farms on the mountains in my constituency. Who owns them? A Swedish company, Vattenfall. We need our own energy sources. The Welsh Government’s proposal to develop a publicly owned energy company, Ynni Cymru, has been followed by UK Labour’s proposal for GB Energy, a British publicly owned company that will help generate the clean power that will cut bills and provide energy security for the UK. Those measures will start to challenge the private market, but we need public ownership now so that the power we produce contributes to our national community prosperity, not the pockets of private companies, fossil fuel giants and shareholders. It is affordable, as the Trades Union Congress has already set out. Energy costs must be brought down, and to achieve that, we must have public ownership, which is in the interests of the people of the UK and the future of our planet.
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Lady mentioned Ynni Cymru, which is something I have pushed for many a year, and I am glad that it is embedded in the partnership agreement. The Leader of the Opposition announced in his conference speech that there will be a GB Energy model based on Ynni Cymru. Can the hon. Lady explain how those two bodies will interact? There will be a Labour Government in a few years—there is no doubt about that now, and I of course welcome that—so there will be a GB Energy company. How is that company going to interact with the Welsh Government’s energy company?
Beth Winter
I think that point is under discussion. I am not in the fortunate position of being on the Front Bench at the moment, but I understand that those discussions are in train. Hopefully, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North can expand on that.
To conclude, on the question of how this will be paid for, I am will be presenting a petition from the people of Cynon Valley in the Chamber tomorrow evening with key asks, including a wealth tax, a windfall tax and a cap on energy costs—an array of initiatives. We are the fifth richest nation in the world; we can, and must, afford this. We must change for the benefit of everybody in our country. Diolch yn fawr.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
We now come to the Front Benchers. We have a little bit more time than the 10 minutes that is normally allocated, if you want to take a bit more time—15 minutes or whatever.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I will try to spend the time I have addressing myself to the excellent speeches we have heard this afternoon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) on securing the debate. It is about Wales and how Wales is affected by the runaway rises we are seeing in energy costs and by the actions the Government have taken in relation to them. Those price rises are having devastating effects across Wales, and hon. Members have paid considerable attention this afternoon to what is happening to individual constituents across Wales. Of course, price rises are having devastating effects across the whole UK, but two things stand out in the case of Wales.
The first is the particular demography of Wales. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) mentioned, Wales has a different profile in terms of its households and energy costs, particularly from England, and from the UK in general. One in five households in Wales is off the grid; fewer than one in six are off the grid across the whole UK, and for England that figure is about one in eight. Those off-grid properties in Wales have suffered to a far greater extent than households in England and Scotland and in the United Kingdom generally. That is, among other things, because the heating fuels needed for off-grid properties were never under the price cap. Those properties suffered price rises of, for example, 250% in two years for heating oil before the crisis came upon us. They are in the crisis now, with further enormous increases, but they were suffering for a long time before that.
It is therefore wholly appropriate and deserves congratulation that the Welsh Government have instituted an additional £200, on top of the funding available in the UK generally, to meet the specific circumstances in Wales. Considering their other financial problems, the fact that they are able to carve out that amount to support people in these circumstances is something we can only stand back and applaud, and I would be first to add my applause.
The immediate response—well, the rather less than immediate response—of the UK Government, through the energy price support scheme, has been relatively generous and goes some considerable way to removing the worst aspects of the energy price rises for the general public, and is to be tremendously welcomed for that reason. However, I have one or two points to make about what the UK Government have done and what it means for the future and what we all have to face. This energy price crisis will not go away in a year’s time, with prices going back to normal.
The Minister for Climate (Graham Stuart)
The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the crisis may not necessarily go away quickly, so why is it Labour party policy to intervene for six months? The Government have come in with family support—I am delighted to hear his recognition of the extent and power of that intervention—for two years.
Dr Whitehead
The support is for two years for domestic properties. For business and commercial properties, it is for six months. The proposal that the Government have put forward for two years’ support on price rises is completely unfunded. We might, for example, have introduced a windfall levy, to accurately reflect the difference between what is happening in the UK market and the reasons for the price increases, and the profits being made by the energy companies supplying the UK, particularly with gas. Those profits are not based on some amazing technical breakthrough in the delivery of gas to the UK; exactly the same companies are providing exactly the same service in bringing gas from the wholesale market to the retail market in the UK, but they are making nine times the profit they were previously, for no extra work at all. The idea that we should put forward a windfall levy to cover a good proportion of the cost of those arrangements seems a complete no-brainer. I was quite astonished when the Government decided that they were not going to draw on that resource at all for the next phase of the support arrangements. Not only were they not going to introduce an immediate levy, but they were not going to introduce any sort of continuing levy arrangement to keep prices at a reasonable level.
The Labour proposal took into account what we do in the first instance with the windfall levy and what we do over the next period. I want to come to that in a moment, but it is important to recognise that the Prime Minister was bang on guilty of misleading the public in her recent conference speech, and other speeches, by saying that people would pay not more than—
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. I ask the hon. Member to be careful about the word “misleading”. Perhaps “unintentionally misleading” would be more helpful.
Dr Whitehead
Of course, the Prime Minister was unintentionally misleading the British public in this instance by saying that they would not pay more than £2,500 on their energy bills. She did correct herself later, but she gave the unintentionally misleading impression that we are all okay and will not pay more than £2,500 for bills—essentially, however much energy we use, it would not cost us more than £2,500. That is completely wrong. This is a support scheme based on units consumed. Therefore, households with very few resources but higher than average energy use will pay far more than £2,500 for their fuel this winter.
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the generosity of the UK Government’s support scheme, but they have to be slightly careful about that, do they not? It is partially a result of electricity prices in the UK being the second highest in Europe—only the Czech Republic has higher. For the last five years, electricity prices in the UK have been far higher. Within the UK, electricity prices in south Wales and north Wales are far higher than the UK average. There is something drastically wrong with the system, is there not?
Dr Whitehead
It is uncanny that the hon. Member has anticipated exactly what I was going to say next: one reason it was necessary for the UK Government to be relatively generous in their support is that the price rises in the UK are far higher than those across most of the rest of Europe. I will not go into the support that the French Government have put in place to support price rises, but French price rises are 4% or 5%. The rises are quite a considerable factor of how energy markets work in the UK as opposed to the arrangements elsewhere in Europe.
For a long time we had a Government pretty much asleep at the wheel on governing energy prices, thinking that an energy price cap would deal with the whole thing. But the energy price cap originally was supposed to deal with retail companies price gouging, not price rises coming from the wholesale market into the retail market in the UK as a whole. The fact is that UK energy prices are determined entirely by gas prices. We have done a lot over the years to start bringing renewable energy sources into the mix—indeed, 38% of our power is now supplied by renewable sources; if we take nuclear too, the majority of our energy supply is provided by low-carbon sources—but the UK retail market works as if it were supplied entirely by gas-fired power stations paying the price of gas to make electricity. That is because of the marginal effect of the way the UK energy market works, with auctions and how that all works. I do not think we will go into that this afternoon, but the fact is that the UK energy market is completely broken, in that it allows those really high prices to come through in a situation where we are—or should be—decreasingly reliant on gas.
Let me make a couple of suggestions. It is one thing to introduce price support for the immediate problem of energy price rises. By the way, that problem is not, as the right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) said, exclusively about the Ukraine war. Prices were going through the roof well before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. They started increasing at a high and unsustainable rate from the middle of 2021. The Ukraine war has exacerbated that considerably, but it is by no means the only reason. One reason that prices increased considerably well before the Ukraine war started was the structure of energy markets in the UK, the extent to which they were completely prey to profiteering, and the fact that the UK Government were unable to do anything about the effect of increases in the international price of gas on the UK market.
If we have price support over the next period but we do nothing about that structural position, knowing that sky-high gas prices will be with us for probably—I am speculating—the next decade, or at least five to six years, and that the price will never come down to its level of three or four years ago, we will simply be here in two or three years’ time saying exactly the same thing under exactly the same circumstances. The price cap and the price support will have been and gone and we will be in exactly the same position as before.
Now is the time for the Government to fix the UK energy market rapidly, so that we do not find ourselves here again. That means getting us out of gas and on to renewables as quickly as possible. Without adding to what hon. Members have said, the Labour party’s commitment to a wholly renewable power system by 2030 is absolutely germane to ensuring we have an energy system that delivers us relatively low-priced energy that is not volatile, and is not subject to international power politics, with LPG vessels changing course halfway across the Atlantic because someone has bought their cargo at a higher price than they originally thought they were getting for it when they set out. All those issues would be resolved because the power would be UK-based and essentially free—once the capital cost of the renewables providing it had been taken away—and it would be entirely within the UK’s control to deal with prices in the UK. That is how to fix the particularly difficult energy market conditions.
By the way, a lot can be done in that direction before we get to that position by decoupling energy prices in the UK market from the gas market. That can be done by changing the way people receive their rewards, as far as energy is concerned, and renewable obligations and contracts for difference, as far as renewable energy is concerned. We could perhaps introduce a green power pool arrangement, whereby renewable power is traded in advance of gas, and the gas is placed on the margins without the ability to swamp the whole market. That means that we perhaps have to introduce a strategic reserve for gas-fired power stations outside the market as we move towards a wholly renewable energy market.
None of that will wait for the energy crisis to be over. If we do not do these things very quickly, we will just repeat ourselves. One of the key things—
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. I think we are getting to the point at which the Minister needs to come in.
Dr Whitehead
Yes, indeed.
The Opposition will look very closely at whether the Government are serious about moving our energy economy on to the sort of renewable basis that we have set out. One of the early indications that they are not is the recent shenanigans going on with solar farms and wind in this country. We will look on, and we hope the Government have success in moving the energy economy away from a reliance on gas. Certainly, introducing fracking and exploring more for gas in the North sea will not fix it; indeed, they will do the opposite. This is about getting renewables in place for our power system as soon as possible and ensuing we are proofed against crises in the future. That would be of great benefit for Wales and for UK customers as a whole, because their bills would assuredly come down in the future. It is a policy for the long term, not one just to fix the windows a bit while it is raining.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I ask the Minister to leave a couple of minutes for the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) to sum up at the end.
The Minister for Climate (Graham Stuart)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) on securing the debate, although I share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) some disappointment at the tone that she and most Labour Members took. That does not reflect the seriousness of the debate, and by way of contrast I would point not only to my right hon. Friend’s typically thoughtful speech but to that of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), who made his points perfectly clearly but constructively, as we wrestle with this unprecedented global rise in prices.
It was good to hear the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead)—this was not reflected by the more rabid Back-Bench contributions—recognising the scale and generosity of the intervention, which is the most generous in Europe. This Government have acted decisively to help families and the poorest in particular. A failure to acknowledge those basic facts suggests a lack, I would say, of moral seriousness in dealing with this issue, which is of great import and is having a great impact on families now. No one is well served by political game-playing when we are dealing with something so severe and serious.
The Government understand the scale of the challenge and are taking action to help support households and businesses facing these record energy prices. This includes those in all four of our nations. Wales, alongside the rest of the UK, is feeling the pain of this crisis, which has been driven by the illegal invasion of Ukraine and Putin holding gas supplies hostage, in addition to the global pressures of the recovery from the pandemic—a point that was set out by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, who is a learned Gentleman in this area of energy policy.
The announcements made by the Prime Minister on 8 September and 21 September 2022 demonstrated the Government’s commitment to protecting UK households and businesses through the energy price guarantee and the energy bill relief scheme. Under the plans, households, businesses and public sector organisations across the country will be protected from significant rises in energy bills, thanks to the new Government support that took effect from the beginning of October.
Without Government action, average household energy bills under the energy price cap had been due to rise to around £3,500 in October, a rise of 80% on current bills. Next year, it was predicted they would increase to as high as £6,500 per family. Those are truly chilling numbers. From this month, the Government’s energy price guarantee will limit the price households pay per unit of gas and electricity they use. It means that a typical household in Great Britain will pay on average £2,500 a year. Those with lower energy bills will pay considerably less, because it is about the number of units that people use. An average family will save between £1,000 and perhaps as much as £4,000 a year because of this unprecedented, unparalleled intervention by the Government to look after the people of this country and help them through this challenge.
The intervention has had a significant wider impact. It is interesting to note today that the International Monetary Fund has now conceded that the mini Budget, of which this was the centrepiece, will boost economic growth. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff North, who only wants facts that support her political viewpoint, may be disturbed to learn that according to the IMF in 2022 the UK is predicted now to have the highest economic growth in the G7. This comes at a time of record employment as well. This Government put the people first. One of the saddest things about Labour Governments over the years is that they always end with higher unemployment than at the beginning. I am sure they wish the best, but they never seem to be able to deliver it.
In addition, households will see the first instalment of the £400 energy bill support scheme in their October electricity bill. Families are seeing it in their bills already in some cases. In Great Britain, the discount will automatically be applied monthly in six instalments between October 2022 and March 2023. For the 8 million most vulnerable households across the country, that will form part of a £1,200 package of targeted support to help with the cost of living.
Jonathan Edwards
The Minister mentioned the IMF report. Did the same report not say that, actually, inflation in the UK will be among the highest in Europe? There is perhaps only one country—Slovakia, I think—with a higher inflation rate. People will be hit far harder here.
Graham Stuart
The growth plan and the Government’s intervention will have a significant impact on reducing inflation, protecting households, mortgages and the like. Households in Northern Ireland will also receive support through the energy price guarantee from November, with support for October bills backdated so that they see the same benefit overall.
Like many in the Chamber, I represent a rural constituency with many people off grid. Those who live in an area of the UK that is not served by the gas grid—we have had a lot of conversation about that—and use alternative fuels, such as heating oil, to heat their homes will receive a £100 payment to support them with their energy bills. We are working at pace to work out how best to pay that money to those people. On 8 September, on the Floor of the House, the Prime Minister committed to supporting park homes. Residents will receive support equivalent to the EBSS and the EPG—apologies for the alphabet soup. More details on that will follow soon. It is important to note that households that use alternative fuels will get the £400 energy bills support scheme payment and the electricity component of the energy price guarantee as well as the £100 for alternative fuels.
Graham Stuart
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am going to press on. The Government’s package of interventions makes up the biggest proportion of the fiscal package set out in the growth plan.
Non-domestic energy consumers, including businesses, charities and public sector organisations, have also been experiencing significant increases in energy costs, with reports of increases of more than 500%. Those consumers will also be protected through the Government’s energy bill relief scheme from October, over the next six months. That support is equivalent to the energy price guarantee put in place for households, and similarly discounts the unit prices of gas and electricity, meaning that non-domestic energy consumers will pay wholesale energy costs well below half of the expected prices this winter. That will provide much-needed relief and certainty to non-domestic energy users who were facing significant energy costs, and it will enable them to plan ahead.
Graham Stuart
Forgive me; if I had been left anything like half the time that was available by the Opposition spokesman, I would have been able to accommodate the hon. Gentleman.
After that initial six-month scheme, the Government will provide ongoing focused support for vulnerable industries. There will be a review in three months’ time to consider where that should be targeted to ensure that those most in need continue to get support.
Non-domestic users that are eligible for support with energy bills include those on standard variable energy contracts, those whose fixed-price contracts are coming to an end and those businesses that have agreed a fixed-price contract in the last six months. We recognise that it is a challenging time for businesses, particularly those that are energy intensive, many of which are situated in Wales, as hon. Members will know.
The Government have provided more than £2 billion of support since 2013 to energy-intensive industries. We are continuing to ramp up the support, through measures such as the extension of the energy intensive industries compensation scheme. That is being extended for a further three years, and will double the relief available. We are also consulting on the energy intensive industries exemption scheme, with a view to increasing the aid intensity and reducing electricity prices for energy-intensive industries, thus supporting many jobs in Wales.
In parallel to those measures, the Government are taking decisive steps to tackle the root causes of the issues in the UK energy market, by boosting British energy supply and increasing independence to ensure that this does not happen again. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test is right that that is what we need to do. That includes the work of our energy supply taskforce, a new oil and gas licensing round, lifting the moratorium on UK shale gas production, and driving forward progress on nuclear and renewables.
It is important to remember that our energy needs this year are 75% dependent on fossil fuels. We are driving forward on the path to net zero, more than any other major economy in the world. However, the idea that the market could be entirely decarbonised by 2030 is mad. It is crazy. That is the official policy of His Majesty’s Opposition. The poverty, bankruptcies and ruin that the Opposition’s policy would cause this country—and the impact that it would have on families and businesses in Wales—are incalculable. We need to ensure that our energy system is working to shield consumers in Wales and the whole of the UK from the worst impacts of a volatile international energy market, and to reap the benefits of our increasing cheap renewable electricity generation while reducing our dependence on imported fossil fuels.
I will not take any lectures from Labour Members in this space. Today, renewables make up more than 40% of our electricity supply; just 12 years ago, in 2010, it was 7%. The Labour party talks but it does not deliver; it is the Conservatives who deliver. We have led the world. We have transformed the economics of offshore wind with our contracts for difference, which were brought about under a Conservative-led Government and are now being mimicked right around the world. Why? Because they recognise the high up-front capital cost of these projects, increase certainty for investors, lower the cost of capital, and have seen the price per megawatt-hour for offshore wind go from £120 in a 2015 auction to £38, I think, in the latest round. Not only that, but because of the CfDs brought in by a Conservative Administration, we are now seeing tens of millions of pounds paid back to reduce bills for taxpayers.
The Government are working with electricity generators to reform the outdated market structure where gas sets the price for all electricity. We have recently launched the review of electricity market arrangements, REMA—a major review of Britain’s electricity market design to ensure that it delivers an enduring framework that works for our businesses, industries and households—and we will introduce reform where necessary.
As issues of energy efficiency, fuel poverty and heat are devolved, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have specific net zero strategies, and we work closely with our counterparts in the devolved authorities to ensure that our strategies align. Overall, the UK has a strong track record in making homes more energy-efficient, with 46% in England now achieving an energy performance certificate rating of C or better, compared with 14% in 2010. Again, it is the Conservatives who deliver and reduce energy costs, and it is Labour who produce hot air and nothing to help families with the cost of living. The energy performance of our buildings continues to improve, helping to reduce consumer bills and improve our energy security.
We are taking steps to encourage businesses to reduce their energy demand.
Graham Stuart
No—I will have to sit down very shortly.
We have long-term regulations to ensure that landlords are incentivised to improve the energy efficiency of buildings and to set a minimum standard. We are also providing tax incentives for less energy-intensive technologies by bringing forward an exemption on business rates for green technology, saving businesses an extra £35 million in 2022-23.
We are doing an awful lot, and my job, when the Prime Minister appointed me to this position, was to accelerate the uptake of all of these energies to move us to net zero, and to do so in a way that supports families and does not impoverish them, which is sadly what the policy of the Labour party would bring about.
Anna McMorrin
Where to start? I do admire the fantasy being played out by the Government in trying to explain away the Chancellor’s horrific mini-Budget, while the IMF has today doubled down on its criticism of it in an unprecedented way. However, today’s debate was about energy costs in Wales. I set out in my speech, and we heard from Members present, how those costs have impacted constituents, people, businesses and organisations up and down Wales and, indeed, the whole country.
We need action from this Government, and we need it now. They have been in power for 12 years—12 years doing little bit by little bit. We need proper reform of the energy market, proper investment in renewables, and a proper plan and strategy for an energy efficiency scheme. That starts with the Prime Minister not ignoring official advice from the Climate Change Committee and not ruling out solar generation on farmland. The Government’s actions are pitiful, and they are not the way that we will see solutions across the country.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Baha’i Community in Iran
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the treatment of the Baha’i community in Iran.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I welcome the Minister to her position, and I am grateful that there are a number of other colleagues in the Chamber. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on the Baha’i faith; in that regard, before I come to the meat of what I want to say, let me place on the record the appreciation that I feel, and I know my predecessors felt, for the work of the UK Baha’i Office of Public Affairs. Dan Wheatley, in particular, and his various colleagues over the years have been of enormous service to us all, and to the Baha’i community in my constituency. Orkney and Shetland are home to two small but very effective, warm and welcoming Baha’i communities, which have demonstrated great fellowship to me and my family over the years, for which I have always been enormously grateful.
Persecution of the Baha’i community in Iran is hardly new; it has been a feature of life for Baha’is in Iran since the 1979 revolution. However, over the summer, we saw a sharp increase in the number of innocent Baha’is facing persecution by the Iranian state. It is unfortunate—it grieves me—that we have to bring this matter to the House today, but I hope that those who are suffering that persecution will take some comfort from hearing reference made to it in this House. The people whose names I will mention should understand that their suffering and persecution are seen, and that they will not be ignored by those of us who care about human rights for everyone.
Iran does not have a good record on human rights; I think that is an uncontroversial statement across the Chamber. However, rather than getting to grips with it, the country has in recent years stepped up the oppression of its own people. From the arbitrary detention of protesters to the persecution of the LGBTQ+ community and the second highest number of executions in the world, there is a great deal about which we should worry in the state of human rights and freedom in Iran. I do not want to touch on it at any great length, but it would be remiss of me if I were not to mention what we have seen in recent weeks in Iran. In particular, we should mourn the loss of the 22-year-old Kurdish woman Mahsa Amini, who tragically died in police custody after being detained for alleged violations of Iran’s strict dress code.
It is in this context—that of a brutal regime—that we come to Iran’s repression of the Baha’i community inside its own borders. Iran’s religious minorities have suffered for too long at the hands of the state. The Baha’i community of Iran has an estimated 350,000 believers, who have long faced systematic oppression orchestrated by the Government. That alone merits discussion, but the alarming increase in persecutions of the Baha’i community in recent months further shows the need to shine a spotlight on the issue. This year, over the summer in particular, Baha’is in Iran have faced what The New York Times characterised as a “sweeping crackdown” on their community. That new wave of suppression by Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence has included unwarranted arrests of believers and faith leaders, a deeply concerning rise in the confiscation and destruction of property, and accusations that followers of the Baha’i faith have acted as spies for Israel.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing the debate and on the hard work he does for the Baha’i community. I share his concern for that community in Iran. I believe that Iran’s treatment of the Baha’i community serves as a litmus test for Iran’s commitment to freedom of religion or belief. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that more should be done to stop the arbitrary arrest of Baha’is on spurious allegations? That is one of many ways in which the religious freedom of Baha’is is violated, along with their other fundamental human rights.
Mr Carmichael
Indeed I do, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work he does to promote freedom of religion or belief around the world. He makes a very good point, and I hope to give some context in reference to the situation in which the Baha’is in Iran find themselves.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that people of the Baha’i faith are banned from accessing higher education in Iran, which is a sad means of repression by the state. Does he agree that denying access to education is Iran’s way of keeping Baha’i youth isolated and powerless? Access to education is a vital right that should be protected.
Mr Carmichael
I absolutely do. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point because it means that I will not need to say quite so much about that subject and that I can continue to take interventions. I am happy to take interventions, because it is important that, when the record is printed, it is seen that this is not a tiny concern but one that extends across the House.
Ruth Jones
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech and it is really important that our concern is placed on the record. I am proud to be an officer of the APPG on the Baha’i faith. I hope that he agrees that this House must continue to hold Iran accountable for its violations of the rights of its own citizens in the Baha’i community, particularly during this global crisis. Will he join me in urging the Minister to speak up and speak out, because we need action now?
Mr Carmichael
Absolutely. In many ways Baha’is are low-hanging fruit—this issue is not just confined to Iran but it is particularly acute there—because they are a tiny religious minority. As somebody who has campaigned on human rights for many years, including before I came to this House as a Member of Parliament, I know that that increases rather than diminishes our obligation to draw attention to their plight.
We can do a lot as individual Members of Parliament, but I hope that the Government, who speak for the country as a whole, will take that message to heart in everything we say as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and still, I hope, a country to which the world looks as a force for good and as a protector and, in many cases, a creator of human rights legislation. People should understand that this issue matters to Britain—not just to individuals but to our Government as a whole.
While I am on the subject, I should place on the record my appreciation for the remarks made by Lord Ahmad earlier in the year. They were heard by the Baha’i community in this country and beyond, and they were certainly very much appreciated.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Gentleman is being incredibly generous with his time. I spoke to members of York’s Baha’i community just last week, and they wanted to stress the importance of our Government speaking out because the Baha’i community in Iran cannot. Their aims are always altruistic and peaceable in serving their community. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that many in the Baha’i community are unable to work in Iran because of the suppression and suspicion that is placed on them when all they want to do is serve like the rest of the population?
Mr Carmichael
A breach of human rights is a breach of human rights. It is invidious to try to construct a hierarchy of human rights, because the defining characteristic of human rights is that they are universal. But one of my particular concerns is the pervasive way in which the Iranian state persecutes the Baha’i community. It is not just the persecution of their religious belief, but their exclusion from education, the closing of their businesses—there is persecution in a whole range of ways. That is not an accident. It is a quite deliberate strategy that is designed to persecute people simply because of their religious belief. If we allow it to happen to the Baha’is, it will happen to other religious minorities as well. If it can happen in Iran, it can happen in just about any other country. When it comes to human rights and freedom of religion, we are not safe unless everyone is safe.
The Baha’i International Community reported 125 separate incidents of persecution in the first 10 days of August 2022 alone—a worrying development that signals a step up in the regime’s attempts to crack down on an already heavily persecuted religious minority. By 1 September, the number of incidents in the crackdown had almost doubled to 245. I fear that it is doubtless even higher today.
I want to highlight a number of developments that show the breadth and depth of these changes. First, the regime has upped its campaign against religious minority leaders in Iran by rearresting three former members of the Yaran, the informal leadership committee of the Baha’i community. Afif Naemi, Mahvash Sabet and Fariba Kamalabadi have already served 10 years of their life in prison for their service to the Baha’i community, and the Yaran committee has been wound up, so all three have, in fact, retired from roles of religious leadership.
Furthermore, the mass arrest of 26 Baha’is in the city of Shiraz alone is exceptionally worrying. The number of Baha’is raided, arrested or recalled to prison has increased significantly since June.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving way. He is making a really powerful speech. I have been approached by a number of people in my constituency who are incredibly concerned about this crackdown and the human rights abuses right across Iran. It is particularly worrying for those who belong to my Baha’i community in Halifax. I thank them not only for bringing this to my attention, but for the community work they do in Halifax. Reading the information about what is happening in Iran, I found it particularly heartbreaking to learn of the arrest and detention of parents of young children, leaving those children without parental care. That demonstrates the impact this crackdown is having on families and children in particular.
Mr Carmichael
This is where it becomes personal for us all. As a parent, I can only imagine what it would be like to find myself under that sort of pressure. It touches on my earlier point about the pervasive, all-encompassing nature of the persecution of the Baha’is. They find themselves excluded from just about every aspect of normal, everyday life that we would take for granted. It is this element of systematic oppression that is particularly concerning.
On 2 August 2022, Iran sealed off the village of Roushankouh in the Mazandaran province, blocking off road access by sending in 200 armed agents of the Iranian state. Six homes were demolished by heavy equipment and 20 hectares of Baha’i-owned property were confiscated, according to the Baha’i International Community. Amnesty International reports that villagers had their mobile phones taken to stop them filming, while peaceful protesters were beaten and targeted with pepper spray. That incident follows a similar demolition of at least 50 homes in the village of Ivel, also in the Mazandaran province, in June 2021.
As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) mentioned earlier, access to education is severely limited by the state. Most Baha’is are excluded from the national entrance examination to higher education institutions because their applications are characterised as “file incomplete”—illustrating the way in which bureaucracy can be used as a tool of religious oppression—as they do not come from one of the four constitutionally recognised religions. This year, as of August 2022, more than 90 Baha’i students were prevented from enrolling in Iranian universities, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Iranian Ministry of Intelligence has further accused believers of espionage and infiltrating education institutions.
In 2020, Baha’i faith believers became unable to register for identity cards for a similar reason to that given to those applying for higher education. The option of “other religion” was removed from the application form—an example of Iran cracking down on even a hint of an already oppressed minority—and that has caused real problems, as the Baha’is are not allowed to lie about their faith.
Baha’i-owned shops have been another target of the Iranian regime in recent years. Iranian authorities have systematically closed Baha’i-owned shops without legitimate cause. We also have the horrific situation of more than 1,000 Baha’is facing legal hearings on false charges or being summoned to be put into overcrowded prisons— something that is unjust and unsustainable. But the cruelty does not stop there. In April 2021, Amnesty International reported that authorities prevented Baha’is from burying their loved ones in empty plots at a cemetery near Tehran, insisting that they bury them between existing graves or at the nearby Khavaran mass grave, a site related to the 1988 prison massacres. This ban was eventually lifted after mass public outcry, but the fact that it was ever even imposed shows the Iranian regime’s contempt for the Baha’is within its own borders.
The explicit policy to take away the social and economic rights of the Baha’is is driven by a memorandum from the Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council back in 1991, which was prepared for the Supreme Leader to deal with what was termed “the Baha’i question”. Just consider the use of that term, “the Baha’i question”. This memorandum’s provisions say that the Iranian Government should conduct their dealings with the Baha’i community in such a way that
“their progress and development are blocked”.
As this shows, the recent sweeping crackdown is just the latest in a long line of actions against believers of the Baha’i faith.
The oppression of the Baha’is in Iran has, however, been noticed and will continue to be noticed, and it will be rightfully condemned by human rights campaigners, media and Government. I welcome the comments of Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who was quick to condemn this summer’s developments, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to working with international partners to hold Iran accountable. I hope that that will not be an isolated comment and that the Government of this country will continue to call this out when they find it. What we are witnessing in Iran today is not a new development. The Baha’i community have faced an unjust assault on their freedoms for decades, but it is deeply troubling to watch this new intensification unfold.
For many years, Baha’i officers around the world have suggested that the treatment of their community in Iran offered an instructive litmus test on the sincerity of Iranian authorities towards reform and respect for human rights. In addition to the plight of the Baha’is, we witness a wider human rights crisis engulfing Iran and taking the lives of young Iranians, most notably young women. Iran has failed that litmus test. The Baha’i community and all other persecuted religious minorities across the globe deserve better. They deserve our support. They deserve our actions and the actions of our Government in calling out the actions of the Iranian Government where they are seen. We will not ignore what is happening. I hope that, if this is heard in Tehran, that is the one message that they will take from today’s proceedings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Gillian Keegan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, I believe for the first time. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this important debate and making sure that this important message continues to be heard. I also appreciate his dedication as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Baha’i faith.
Let us be clear: Iran’s human rights record is deplorable. Human rights violations are widespread and routine under President Raisi’s Government. Freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and women’s equal participation in society have been further eroded in 2022, and the events of recent weeks, following the shocking death of Mahsa Amini after her arrest by Iran’s so-called morality police, bring home the stark reality: women in Iran fearing for their lives because of what they choose to wear. Those who bravely take to the streets to protest against this injustice do so at great risk to their lives. I am in awe of them, and I know from the previous debate and urgent question that many in this House are as well.
Mass arrests and the mistreatment of detainees are common, trials continue to be marred by irregularities, and individuals receive little or no due process. The use of the death penalty is rampant and on the rise. It is against that bleak backdrop that the Baha’i community face a sustained campaign of persecution by the Iranian authorities. The Baha’i community has long faced systematic discrimination and targeted harassment in Iran. As the right hon. Member said, acts of repression include the forced closure of Baha’i-owned shops and businesses, pressure to convert to Islam and the denial of education, which the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) mentioned. Over recent years, there has been a marked increase in the state identifying, monitoring and arbitrarily detaining Baha’i people. Alarmingly, Iran shows no signs of stopping.
On 1 August, the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence confirmed the arrest of a number of Baha’i community members. That followed credible reports in July, particularly in the Mazandaran province, of widespread raids of Baha’i homes, forced demolitions and property seizures. Since June, the community has reported a marked uptick in arrests, including, as the right hon. Member also mentioned, three former spiritual leaders, with some detainees handed lengthy sentences. These reports point to one conclusion: the Iranian authorities have made a conscious decision to intensify the repression of the Baha’i.
While Iran’s constitution offers protection for some faiths, there is widespread discrimination against minority religious or belief groups. This experience is noticeably worse for unrecognised faiths, such as the Baha’i. This Government share the view of the UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in Iran, namely that discrimination against the Baha’i community is legally sanctioned by a lack of constitutional recognition in Iranian law and the absence of other legal protections. Recent reports that Iran is carrying out a campaign to persecute Baha’i followers in other countries—such as in Yemen, through its links with the Houthis—highlight the severity of Iran’s suppression of religious minorities.
As hon. and right hon. Members are aware, the UK Government are committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all and promoting respect between different religious and non-religious communities. When we have concerns, we engage directly with Governments at ministerial and official level, and we raise them both publicly and privately. We have repeatedly expressed concern at the ongoing repression of members of the Baha’i faith and have taken the following steps. On 5 August, as outlined earlier, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon issued a statement condemning the detention of members of the Baha’i community in Iran and reports of forced closures of their businesses and land seizures. He made it clear that the persecution of religious or belief minorities cannot be tolerated and is a serious violation of international human rights law.
The UK continues to co-sponsor the annual UN resolution on the human rights situation in Iran and works with international partners to ensure that it expresses serious concerns about Iran’s mistreatment of members of minority religious or belief groups, including the Baha’is. We will continue to hold Iran to account for its human rights record and have done so in relation to the crackdown on girls, women and other peaceful protesters. On 21 September, Lord Ahmad in his capacity as Minister for the Middle East called for a rigorous and transparent investigation into Mahsa Amini’s death and urged Iran to respect the right to peaceful assembly. On 3 October, the Foreign Secretary summoned Iran’s most senior diplomat in the UK to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. He made it clear that instead of blaming external actors for the unrest, the Iranian authorities should take responsibility for their actions and listen to the concerns of their people. Yesterday the UK Government imposed new sanctions on the morality police and two of its leaders, as well as five individuals historically responsible for the repression of protests. As the Foreign Secretary has said, the protests send a clear message that Iranian people are not satisfied with the path that their Government have been taking, and Iran’s leaders must now listen.
The UK continues to demonstrate its global leadership on freedom of religion or belief in support of human rights in Iran and around the world. In July, the UK hosted the international ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief, at which 47 Governments, international organisations and other entities made pledges to take positive actions in support of that human right. We will continue to build and strengthen coalitions with Governments and civil society in order to promote and protect freedom of religion or belief for all. This Government are appalled by the treatment of the Baha’i community in Iran and by the crackdown on peaceful demonstrators. I assure the House that this Government remain committed to defending freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief for all, and to promoting respect between different religious and non-religious communities. We will continue to hold the Iranian Government accountable for their human rights obligations, and to take action and encourage the international community to join us when they do not.
I thank Members for this important debate, and I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for securing it.
Question put and agreed to.
Liver Disease and Liver Cancer: Diagnosis
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the diagnosis of liver disease and liver cancer.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am proud to sit as a vice-chair on the all-party parliamentary group on liver disease and liver cancer. I am delighted to have succeeded in securing today’s debate.
While health policy may be devolved in Scotland, I believe that work in this area across our four nations is vital. We can support each other in cutting mortality rates and improving outcomes across the UK. The liver is a remarkable organ. Like something from science fiction, it can regenerate. It is one of the more forgiving pieces of our anatomy. We can make lifestyle changes and treat it a bit better, and it has the capability to heal itself and undo some of the damage we may have caused in the past.
Considering that the liver is one of our most important organs in terms of its function, we probably do not give it the attention it deserves. Some 49% of liver cancer cases in the UK are preventable, and 20% of liver cancer cases in the UK are caused by smoking, according to Cancer Research. There are around 6,200 new liver cancer cases in the UK every year and 5,800 deaths. That is roughly 17 diagnoses a day and 16 deaths. There are five types of liver-affecting cancer, with hepatocellular carcinoma, or HCC, being the most common, accounting for more than three quarters of liver cancer cases globally.
While mortality rates for other cancers have improved over the decades, liver cancer mortality has more than doubled since the ’70s, with only 13% of patients surviving more than five years from diagnosis. Right now, the United Kingdom is facing a liver disease crisis. The number of deaths from the disease have doubled in the last two decades, while other disease outcomes, for example from diabetes or respiratory diseases, have stabilised or even improved. Around 10,000 people die from liver disease and liver cancer each year in the UK. It is the second leading cause of premature mortality in England and Wales after suicide. These statistics come in spite of the fact that 90% of liver disease is preventable.
As a Scottish MP representing a Scottish constituency, this hits even closer to home. Scotland has the highest mortality rate for liver disease in the whole United Kingdom. We also have one of the highest mortality rates for chronic liver disease across central, northern and southern Europe. This health crisis is affecting my constituents, and the statistics are sobering. In 2020, Scotland saw an 11% rise in chronic liver disease deaths on the previous year. It is one of the leading causes of premature deaths, above breast cancer and suicide. Approximately seven in 10 people who died of liver disease were of working age, so under 65. In a country with an average life expectancy at birth of 76.6 years for males and 80.8 years for females, these are premature deaths.
I want to look at why liver disease and cancer outcomes are so poor in Scotland and across the UK and at what work needs doing to address that. Let me start with the why. One of the biggest barriers to effective diagnosis and treatment is the social stigma that continues to cloud how we view patients with liver disease and cancers. It is crucial to acknowledge and understand the part that poverty has to play in the demographic of patients with these conditions. As the UK grapples with the cost of living crisis and a drastic drop in living standards, this is not a contributing factor that can be overlooked or ignored—it will be a huge risk to public health and the lives of those living in our most vulnerable communities—and it would be a catastrophic mistake to do so.
There are over 100 causes of liver disease, but the ones that contribute to the most cases are also factors much more likely to be present in poorer communities: alcohol misuse and obesity. In Scotland, 58% of liver disease deaths are alcohol related. Across the UK, alcohol-related liver disease accounts for 60% of diagnoses. Like most addictions, alcohol abuse is statistically higher in poorer communities and carries a heavy stigma: the resulting harm is seen as self-inflicted. To improve outcomes for alcohol-related liver disease, we need to look at alcohol dependency and the reasons for its prevalence. Most importantly, we need to support patients in making positive lifestyle changes. Access to the right care is paramount, and increasing the availability and quality of support available at a primary care level is essential.
On the impact of obesity, which is also higher in Scotland than the rest of the UK, non-alcohol related fatty liver disease, or NAFLD, is expected to become the leading variation of the disease in the UK within the next decade. Nearly one third of Scottish adults are obese and two thirds are overweight, but the statistics across the UK are similar. Again, obesity is more prevalent in deprived communities; it is seen as a choice. Obese people are seen as greedy or lazy, and societal conditioning teaches us that we do not need to look much closer at the reasons why.
There are many reasons why obesity is on the rise in those communities, including underlying health conditions, eating disorders and a lack of access to high-quality healthy foods. Like alcohol abuse, this challenge needs to be met with increased access to the right support, such as weight management programmes, but by far the most important tool on the road to prevention is early detection. That goes for alcohol-related liver disease, NAFLD or viral hepatitis, autoimmune or genetic-related.
Liver disease is largely asymptomatic in the early stages. Three quarters of patients with cirrhosis are diagnosed only when it has progressed too far for intervention or treatment. Without early detection pathways and investment in treatment, we will continue to see mortality rates rise. The British Liver Trust’s 2021 survey showed massive disparities in access to patient care pathways for early diagnosis in primary care settings region to region. It revealed that just 26% of local health bodies in the UK have effective pathways in place. It is calling for every integrated care system or health board to ensure that there is a named person responsible for liver disease and the identification of high-risk patients, and for all GPs to have the means to assess fibrosis.
CT and MRI scans are a critical tool for diagnosis and informing treatment plans, but this is an area that has been overlooked. The key problems are access to the right equipment and the quality of the equipment available. Some 41% of clinical radiologists state that they do not have the equipment they need to deliver a safe and effective service for patients. Industry surveys show that one in 10 CT scanners and almost a third of MRI scanners are more than a decade old—the age at which the equipment is considered obsolete. That is shocking.
This area of the NHS, like so many others, it is struggling with workforce numbers. The British Liver Trust welcomed the Government’s 15-year workforce strategy earlier this year, and I back its calls for gastroenterology and hepatology to be given due recognition through that process.
In May, I visited the Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), as part of the APPG’s work, and we saw the Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, a leading centre for liver disease treatment. It is well equipped with excellent, highly skilled staff. I would like every area of the UK to have something similar in place for patients. I met the chief executive, John Connolly, and Dr Thorburn, a consultant hepatologist, along with some of the patients. My conversations with Lucy and Hannah, two young women undergoing treatment at the centre, really brought home the human aspect of the disease. I am grateful to them for taking the time to speak to me about their experiences.
This morning, I received some very disappointing statistics from my local health board, NHS Lanarkshire, which is categorised as “red”, with no effective pathways in place for early detection and disease management. I have reached out to NHS Lanarkshire to request an urgent meeting so I can discuss this and seek assurances on its plans for improvement. The stats for my local board have cemented just how fundamental it is to properly fund detection and treatment of liver disease and liver cancer, and to give the NHS the tools it needs to support our communities.
While NHS Lanarkshire falls under the remit of the Scottish Government, I want to make some requests to the Minister here, too. The all-party parliamentary group on liver disease and liver cancer, along with the British Liver Trust, is calling for a full review of adult liver services by NHS England. I urge the Minister to make that a priority. I hope that I have set out enough reasons to illustrate why that is so essential, and I am sure that other Members will have more to add.
As part of the plans to improve early detection rates, the NHS health check must routinely include assessment for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, as it looks to become the leading cause of liver disease over the next 10 years. Pathology is also vital, providing the study of disease and informing the development of treatment. I back calls for a new, nationally endorsed pathology pathway. That is another area that desperately needs support with its workforce supply and funding. I hope that the Minister will be able to address her Department’s plan for that support. Overarching all of this is the need for Government commitment and direction to address the disparities in access to care through policymaking and implementation.
Before I finish, I thank several organisations for supplying briefings to inform so much of this speech, and for their ongoing work in this area. I thank The British Liver Trust—particularly Paul, Richard and its chief executive officer, Pam—as well as Cancer Research, the Royal College of Pathologists and the Royal College of Radiologists. I look forward to the Minister’s response; I hope that, through collaboration, we can accelerate progress across the four nations to improve outcomes for patients and for our constituents.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
The wind-ups have to start at about quarter past, so that is six Back Benchers in about an hour. I think you can probably work out the time limits for yourselves in that respect. First of all, from the Government Benches, I call Peter Gibson.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on securing this debate. I also welcome the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), to her place. I wish her every success in her new role. I have known her for over 30 years, and I have every confidence that she will be a thoughtful, listening Minister in a Department where she has professional experience and expertise.
Last month, my father should have celebrated his 80th birthday. Instead, his life was cut short by liver and pancreatic cancer. He died at 47—the age I am now—exactly six weeks to the day from being diagnosed. Looking back on the events of his passing in 1990, I would have assumed that things had improved. Advances in screening, treatment and diagnosis surely must have led to a very changed picture. However, in preparing for today’s debate, I have sadly learned that things do not look better. The British Liver Trust reports that there were around 200,000 deaths from liver disease in 1990, and in 2018 that figure had risen to almost 400,000.
In the north, the picture is quite bleak. It has the highest levels of liver disease, the highest admissions and the highest deaths. Liver disease is the second biggest cause of premature mortality and lost working years of life. We have seen a 400% increase in deaths from liver disease over just the last two generations. Liver cancer has seen the second fastest increase in incidence of any cancer in the UK, and the fastest increase in mortality rates over the past decade of any cancer for both men and women. Liver cancer mortality rates have more than doubled since the 1970s. I am reliably informed by the British Liver Trust that, sadly, the mortality rate in Darlington is the worst in the north-east, at 46 deaths per 100,000. Those are the worst results of any constituency in the north-east, which in itself is the worst in the country.
Those figures are not worrying or troubling; they are shocking. That is why I am pleased that we are having this debate. It is essential that the Government focus on tackling the causes of liver disease and cancer, so that we can prevent further families from losing a loved one prematurely.
As we know, liver disease is largely preventable, however symptoms often do not present until the damage is irreversible, making early diagnosis difficult but key to tackling disease. We know that liver disease deaths are higher in more deprived areas and are increased by higher levels of alcohol harm and obesity. When we talk about levelling up—improving our roads and railways, improving our homes and hospitals—we must not forget, and indeed must have a keen focus on, the health mission element of our levelling-up goals: to narrow the gap in healthy life expectancy and increase healthy life expectancy by five years.
The British Liver Trust’s “Make early diagnosis of liver disease routine” campaign in Parliament earlier this year was welcome, as are the Government’s efforts to improve diagnosis times and make testing more readily available. The evidence from this debate, however, is clear: we need to go much further and much faster to have a real impact on the dreadful mortality figures.
As I said at the beginning, I know that the Minister is someone who listens and who will have listened closely to the debate. I know too that, as someone who was born in the north-east, she will share my concerns about those families robbed of their fathers or mothers too early. She will want to do all that she can to reduce those losses in the future. I look forward to her response to the debate.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Those Members who were listening intently to what I said earlier will have noticed that I tried to extend the debate by a further half hour, although we do have to start the wind-ups at about quarter past. For guidance, that gives about five minutes for each speech.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on her excellent contribution. I also thank her for her tremendous commitment to the work of the all-party parliamentary group on liver disease and liver cancer, which is really appreciated.
This is an important debate, and I speak as the chair of the APPG on liver disease and liver cancer. As we have heard, unfortunately the incidence of liver disease is increasing dramatically, although 90% of liver disease is clearly preventable. However, it has to be addressed in its early stages. Worryingly, three quarters of people with cirrhosis are diagnosed when it is too late for effective intervention or treatment. To say that there is a liver disease public health emergency in our country is not an exaggeration. That needs to be addressed, and addressed urgently.
These days, in particular over the past two years, we hear a great deal about levelling up, but it is important that we see a health aspect to that agenda as well. It is truly shocking that liver disease deaths are four times higher in deprived areas. In those areas, people with liver disease die 10 years earlier than people with the disease in the most affluent areas. That needs to be addressed as part of a wider debate about creating a more balanced and equal society.
A short time ago, the British Liver Trust conducted a survey, which was published in the British Journal of General Practice in August last year. The survey identified widespread variation in the identification, treatment and management of chronic liver disease in primary care. It found that only 26% of local health bodies have an effective patient pathway in place for the early detection of liver disease. That survey was reinforced by the fact that a number of Members of Parliament wrote to their local health bodies: in total, 31 letters were sent by parliamentarians to their relevant health bodies to call for urgent action to improve liver disease pathways. Sadly, good practice is a postcode lottery.
It is important to bear in mind that we are not just talking about an abstract disease but about real people in terrible circumstances. Last July, the all-party parliamentary group on liver disease and liver cancer took evidence on the need for a comprehensive review of adult liver services in this country. We heard from a patient called Steve, who gave a moving address. He shared his experience of running a business for some 36 years and fighting for his life in accident and emergency with end-stage liver failure. Steve fell through gaps in the system and faced a life-threatening late diagnosis, due to the stigma that has been referred to, which is all too prevalent in this disease. He was discharged from A&E with little more than a dietitian’s sheet. He did not have access to any support or resources, and had no idea how to manage his condition. Steve’s story is a poignant reminder that we need urgently to improve the quality of care for people at risk of liver disease across the United Kingdom.
There is hope across the United Kingdom. In particular, under the leadership of the Welsh Government, Wales was the first UK country to introduce a dedicated liver disease delivery plan in 2015. The all-Wales liver blood test pathway is providing for the early diagnosis and management of liver disease across the whole of Wales. I am very pleased that the work was based initially on the local pilot project in Gwent, from which I come, and ensured an 81% increase in diagnosis of cirrhosis at a treatable stage.
Yesterday I was pleased to receive a letter from the deputy head of external affairs for NHS England. I thought, “Good! He has something positive to announce in readiness for this debate.” However, I was disappointed, because the letter says that “internal discussions” have taken place about whether there should be a review of adult services, and if there is, it will be done in the future. I think we have gone beyond that stage. The evidence is there. We need to go beyond discussing whether we should have the review—we should get on and do it.
The letter is disappointing and I urge the Minister to ensure that England is not left behind in the early diagnosis of liver disease. We urgently need a new, nationally endorsed pathology pathway that will save lives, drastically improve early diagnosis and transform outcomes for liver disease patients.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members to try to keep to five minutes. The next Member indicated that he has to leave before the end of the debate, and I accept his reasons, so I call Anthony Mangnall.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on securing this debate on an important issue. It is striking how similar the points she made about her constituency are to the issues affecting many constituencies across the country, especially down in the south-west. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), who added such a personal point to his speech, as well as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and his extremely good work on the APPG.
I can be very brief, because I want to make just a few points. I come to the debate having not known a great deal about the issue before I was elected. Like so many people, I was lobbied and introduced to the subject by constituents, specifically the Meredith family, who are very involved in liver diagnosis and transplant services and the need to improve them in the south-west. Over the last three years, I have met them regularly to discuss the issue, to see how the UK can improve its services across the whole of the country and to look at some of the positives and negatives. Of course, I am participating in the debate to point out some of the negatives, but it has been a fascinating journey. I met Professor Cramp of University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust to discuss the matter, to see where we might be able to improve it and to lobby my colleagues in the south-west about beginning a campaign to improve south-west transplant and diagnosis services. There is a real need to do so, and the statistics speak for themselves.
I continue to learn about this issue. In fact, I was completely unaware of the link between smoking and liver disease; given the fact that I am trying to quit smoking, that has only redoubled my efforts. It is important, because we talk in this debate about where we can tackle things at source: people who have alcohol addiction, smoking addiction or issues around obesity. We must address those at-source points.
However, I will focus very briefly on geographical disadvantages. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West described what she sees in her own constituency, but it is absolutely the same in mine. People who are in need of liver transplants have to travel across the country for a potential transplant, and they are then rejected when they arrive at the hospital. They then travel back to the south-west, which on a good day can be a four, five or six-hour round trip—far more if they are travelling by car. That is incredibly debilitating for them. It is incredibly destructive, and it hurts their health. We need to look at where we can improve that geographical disadvantage, and the south-west is more than a good case in point.
As I understand it, there is due to be a review of adult liver disease services this year. I understand that it was meant to be 2022-23. Would the Minister update the House—I apologise for not being here for her concluding remarks, but I will look at Hansard tomorrow—on whether that will be undertaken this year, and when it is likely to report? It is hugely important. A great many of us are banking on that report to identify some of the pitfalls across the country. May I also invite the Minister to meet the Meredith family and Professor Cramp to discuss the issue, get a better sense of where we are in the south-west and get a sense of where there are disadvantages for those who are suffering?
We have a real opportunity. I do not think there is any politics in the issue. We all recognise the pitfalls across the country—where the problem is increasing, and why it is increasing—and we have the opportunity to address it. I look forward to seeing the Minister’s response, and I again congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West on securing the debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for raising this issue and for giving us all an opportunity to participate in the debate. I am my party’s spokesperson for health, and also a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on liver disease and liver cancer, so it is good to be here to discuss how we can better improve our services for the diagnosis of liver disease and cancer.
There are over 100 types of liver disease and cancer. They impact some 2 million people across the United Kingdom, so it is of the utmost importance that our services are up to scratch to ensure quick and efficient diagnosis. The British Liver Trust has raised concerns about the difficulty of diagnosing liver disease, given that it can take some time for real symptoms to show. Perhaps the Minister would come back to us on that issue. I am very pleased to see the Minister in her place, which is well deserved, and we look forward to her response to all the issues raised by Members.
Many may wish to keep an eye out if they have been indulging in what are classed as the three main causes of liver disease: excessive alcohol consumption, undiagnosed hepatitis and potential obesity. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West set that out very clearly. Since the 1970s, liver disease has been on the increase, with a 400% increase in deaths. That cannot be ignored. I am one of those—probably one of many here—who have had a liver capacity test. It has also been said that there is a stark disparity between liver disease and diseases such as cancer and heart disease: figures show that deaths from those diseases have remained stable or decreased.
This is a nationwide issue, of course. As of 2019, one in five people in Northern Ireland—I always like to give a Northern Ireland perspective in these debates—who was suffering from liver disease was completely unaware of the fact. It is staggering that that could be the case: that is 20% of those people. In addition, since 2011, there has been a 28% increase in hospital admissions due to liver diseases and cancer.
Unlike some diseases, liver disease is something that we have real control over if we are on top of it and looking out for the potential symptoms. We must become knowledgeable as to how we prevent liver disease to start with: keeping an eye on our consumption of sugar, fat and alcohol can be instrumental in preventing some 90% of liver diseases, so there are a lot of things we can do ourselves. Before covid, Parliament’s Health and Social Care Committee released a publication that alerted people to the concern that exists about alcohol-related diseases and deaths—about a potential spike in deaths of young people due to alcohol or needle-induced hepatitis, which are extremely preventable. The Government have a role to play in schools and at universities to ensure that young people who may be experimenting with alcohol are fully aware of its long-term impacts.
There are things we can do to prevent liver disease, and to diagnose it earlier. Along with personal awareness, more must be done to gather as much information as possible through research. As with all diseases, the more funding we are able to pump into researching liver disease, the more we can investigate, learn and prevent in the future. That is ultimately the role of Governments, not only here in Westminster but across all our devolved Assemblies, whether in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. They are responsible for funding our wonderful charities to enable them to commission and implement great liver disease and cancer services for all our constituents. It is important that we as elected representatives align ourselves very closely with liver disease charities. Those charities do incredible work, carrying out investigations and tests to find ways of making people’s lives better and, ultimately, to try to do away with liver disease.
We are on the right path, but there is no doubt that there is still work to be done on this issue. When we compare liver disease with other diseases, such as heart diseases and cancers, we can see the success stories in some of those areas, but we can make today’s debate an important step forward in curing liver disease. I hope that today’s turnout has encouraged the Minister to come back with something good when she responds; I also look forward to the contribution of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark). Today is a true representation of our goal to do better, and whether we are in Wales, in Scotland, in Northern Ireland or in England, we can do it together.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on securing the debate. It is also a pleasure to listen to the chair of the APPG on liver disease and liver cancer, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David). I am grateful for the input he gave from Wales in particular, because it is very interesting to hear how different Administrations that have responsibility for health are tackling this issue.
I will spend the brief time I have talking about issues in the north-west of England. Similarly to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), liver disease was not an area that I was particularly familiar with until I became a Member of this House and heard from constituents, particularly families who had seen loved ones go through the terrible, very fast process of hearing about a liver disease and, sadly, passing away. I am particularly grateful to Dr Tim Cross, a constituent who is also a consultant hepatologist at the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust. Talking to him has really helped me to understand some of the issues, and in particular some of the regional disparities that affect not only my constituents in Warrington, but people in towns and cities such as Blackpool, Manchester and Liverpool. These major centres in the north-west of England are woefully underserved when it comes to transplant facilities for tackling liver disease and liver cancer.
All those areas of the north-west record some of the highest rates of liver disease mortality, with the most recent statistics from 2020 highlighted by the British Liver Trust showing a shocking 1,838 deaths, the highest of any region in England. Per 100,000 people, that equates to 28.4 deaths. By comparison, an area such as the east of England has almost half that figure—16.1 deaths per 100,000. Over the course of 2021, the north-west saw around 10,000 admissions to hospital due to liver disease, which is by far the highest figure in the country.
As hon. Members have said, early diagnosis is fundamental to treating the disease and preventing premature deaths. The critical issue for the north-west of England is the total lack of liver transplant facilities. There is not a unit that does it. Patients are routinely travelling to Birmingham, Leeds and a further afield to be assessed for liver transplants. There is no service for an area covering 7.3 million people, including major cities such as Manchester and Liverpool. It is clear to me that one of the reasons that we have such high levels is the poor facilities in those cities in the north-west of England. My constituents are also disadvantaged because they have to spend a lot of their own money travelling to those centres to get clinical guidance—people in other areas are not having to do that. That takes a toll on the constituents who face those challenges.
In Warrington alone, 51 lives were lost due to liver disease last year. Our town’s diagnoses, hospital admissions and premature deaths far exceed the national average. When we talk about the need to level up areas of the UK, particularly in the north of England, that is not just about economic growth. Regional inequalities in healthcare need to be addressed. I am pleased that this Government see that as a priority and are tackling it, but they could address that by looking at liver disease, and liver cancer in particular.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to narrowing the gap in healthy life expectancy, but I urge the Minister to look at liver disease and see what we can do. She will be aware that there are areas of the UK that are asking for better healthcare and better hospitals. Warrington is one of the areas bidding for funding to secure a new hospital. I say to the Minister that Warrington would be a great place to have regional transplant facilities for the north-west of England, and a new facility could accommodate that. I am keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the additional capacity that could be released in the north-west of England to help those people in my area who are suffering from this terrible disease.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on securing this important debate, as well as on the important work that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) do with the APPG.
While there are multiple causes of liver disease, such as from viral hepatitis, obesity and alcohol, I particularly want to focus on alcohol. Successive Health Ministers will know that, over a period of time, I have consistently raised concerns about the absence of a comprehensive alcohol strategy. This afternoon we have heard only too clearly why that is so important. For too long, alcohol has been promoted as a social norm, and not to imbibe as an anomaly, yet the scale of alcohol harm, psychologically and physically, is off the radar. It is something that is causing me significant concern, whether it is used for pleasure or to address pain. It must become a priority of this Government.
In a city where I see more and more licensing of premises, I am aware of the impact and harm that that is having on livers. We see it in the statistics. My discussions with the British Liver Trust over the summer highlighted the fact that more and more people with liver harm were younger and sicker. Our excellent public health team in York says that it is their No. 1 concern. When we match that against the fact that 90% of liver harm is preventable, we realise that there must be a more comprehensive strategy. As the profile of those with liver disease changes, so must investment in prevention, diagnostics and disease management.
Astoundingly, since 2010 hospital admissions for liver disease have risen by a staggering 45%. NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICS currently has no clinical pathway for the early detection of liver disease. I have written to express my concern, and the ICS tells me it will respond on 4 November.
There are many causes of liver disease and cancer, but prevention and early detection can make a significant difference to outcomes. In Yorkshire and the Humber, our pressurised NHS is seeing a 13% increase on the national average for admission rates due to liver disease, and rates are 38% higher for alcohol-related liver disease. In York, alcohol is a major factor in A&E attendance. For women in York, admissions due to liver disease are 30% higher than the national average. As we focus on York being a drinking capital, we have to look at those correlations.
Over the covid period, many people turned to alcohol as a means of addressing other needs. When so many people are dying from alcohol-related disease, the Government must turn their attention to that matter—not least because we know the impact it has on the most deprived communities, as we have heard. In York, the mortality differential is 10 years between the most deprived communities and the wealthiest. One in four with alcohol-related liver disease will die in hospital within 60 days of detection.
I know from working on a ward specialising in hepatology how important this subject is, but also how tragic it is for families. That is why I urge the Government to focus attention on this public health matter in a way akin to Dame Carol Black’s work on drug-abuse harms. There were 4,859 drug deaths in 2021. I am not belittling that statistic at all, but the fact that there are 10,000 liver deaths—over double—really demands the Government’s attention and a strategy. However, there is none in place.
That is why the Minister has a unique opportunity—one that she must take hold of. Ministers can turn their attention to so many things, but getting on top of this issue, driving a strategy that makes that difference and ensuring that every community has a diagnostic centre, as York longs to, could make a serious difference to our communities and our nation. I trust that she will embark on an alcohol strategy and ensure that there are community diagnostic centres, that alcohol harm is properly addressed and focused on, and that we also understand and focus on non-alcohol related fatty liver disease. We have an opportunity to double down on tackling liver disease, and I trust that this Government will not let this moment pass.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
To co-operate with the timing, we head to the Front Benches, with five minutes for the Opposition, 10 minutes for the Minister and a couple of minutes at the end for the mover to wind up.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for securing the debate and for her continued advocacy on this issue. I welcome the Minister to her place, and I look forward to many constructive discussions with her in the months ahead. I praise the contributions from the hon. Members for Darlington (Peter Gibson), for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Warrington South (Andy Carter), and from my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I particularly thank the hon. Member for Darlington for sharing his personal experience. As the hon. Member for Strangford often reminds us at these debates, it is those personal experiences that remind us of the impact of what we are discussing.
Liver disease is increasing rapidly across the country, with deaths doubling over the past 20 years, as we have heard. Too often people with liver disease have little to no recognition of the condition, which is often asymptomatic in its early stages. As a result, as every hon. Member has set out tonight, diagnoses often come too late, with mortality rates from liver disease far outpacing those for other major conditions, such as diabetes or respiratory conditions, which have stabilised or improved over the past 40 years.
This is a condition that is only getting worse, with the 2020 covid-19 lockdowns seeing a 21% increase in alcohol-related liver disease deaths. We have heard tonight that the stats on liver cancer in particular are deeply concerning, with incidences rising by almost half in the past decade. With the poorest and most vulnerable in our society facing dire consequences from the cost of living crisis this winter, we are at real risk of seeing such a spike happen again. Given the serious inequalities we have already observed for liver disease patients, we know the devastating effects that that would have.
Statistics from the British Liver Trust show that prevalence of liver disease is four times higher in our most deprived communities than our most affluent. The most deprived patients are also expected to die a decade younger, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly. This snapshot highlights the most glaring of inequalities. How can it be that, before we even look at the provision of services, people are facing such a glaring postcode lottery?
It is bitterly disappointing for liver disease patients, who are so badly affected, that the new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has decided to scrap the health inequalities White Paper. Given the evidence we have heard from colleagues today, I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government plan to address this issue following that decision.
The picture for liver disease patients is deeply concerning, but when we look at the state of care and treatment services on offer, the situation gets even worse. Although, as we heard, access to specialist care improves survival rates by around 20%, provision of specialist liver disease services across the country is incredibly varied. Each year, thousands of patients are dying unnecessarily because they cannot access specialist services or because the services they can access are stretched to breaking point.
The rise in the prevalence of liver disease, combined with the shortage of specialist care, is compounding the crisis facing all parts of our NHS. More people are being admitted to hospital with no specialist care services available to them and no primary or social care capacity in their communities. We must break this all too common vicious cycle if our NHS is to have any chance to recover. The NHS desperately needs a workforce plan—something that has been called for consistently by not only Labour, but the cross-party Health and Social Care Committee. Can the Minister tell us what plans her Department has to address this issue facing all parts of our NHS?
As well as ensuring that we get the fundamentals such as workforce right, when it comes to liver disease, we should be learning from places where things are going right. Fortunately, my local integrated care system—North Central London—was categorised as green by the British Liver Trust survey, indicating that it has a fully effective pathway in place for the early detection and management of liver disease in primary care. Whether it is proactive case finding to identify those at high risk, GPs having the means to assess fibrosis, or effective management of patients, including referrals to secondary care where necessary, we know what effective care looks like, and we know what works.
I will conclude shortly. We need centres such as the North Central London integrated care system to exist not just in north London, but across the country. I urge the Minister to look at the positive examples of ICSs, such as North Central London, and see how the great work they are doing can be replicated more widely across the country. We know what works. We know we can do it. It is time for the Government to deliver.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Caroline Johnson)
I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for securing a debate on this important issue. She has been a great advocate on this topic, and I share her commitment to tackling this serious disease. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for his kind words and for sharing his family story and speaking about some of the personal, family impact of these terrible conditions.
It is a year ago this month that our colleague, Sir David Amess, was tragically taken from us. He had a huge interest in liver disease. He was the co-chair of the APPG for hepatology and did so much to raise awareness of this disease in Parliament. One of the many ways we can take forward his legacy is to improve the lives of those with liver disease. That is why, although the Minister responsible for this topic was unable to attend, I wanted to ensure that I took forward this important debate and updated hon. Members on the work we are doing.
Many have talked about the scale of the problem, so I will not go further into that, but I want to talk about what we will do to address it. First, the NHS plan will help us to do that. It recognises the importance of preventing avoidable liver disease through targeted policies to address alcohol consumption and obesity. Unfortunately, most people are diagnosed with liver disease at a late stage, when it is less treatable, and they are often diagnosed during an emergency hospital admission. It is for that reason that liver disease is often called the silent killer.
To help detect early signs of liver disease, NHS England has a number of trials in train. One is evaluating intelligent liver function tests. That is when patients get a normal liver function test, and the laboratory has a process in place, based on those results, to test the same sample further, not necessitating a further appointment, so we can work out which patients need further investigation and treatment.
The NHS health check for 40 to 74-year-olds also identifies people particularly at risk of alcoholic liver disease and refers them in for further treatment and investigation. On top of that, we have the fibroscans, which have been rolled out through community diagnostic centres. They help to identify fibrosis in the liver at a time when we can try to treat it and before it becomes worse. Last year’s spending review allocated £2.3 billion for diagnostics to increase the number of community diagnostic centres to at least 100 by March 2025. That will boost diagnostic capacity to diagnose liver disease and improve earlier diagnosis and health outcomes.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about education for children about alcohol. Education on alcohol is now a statutory component of relationships, sex and health education in England.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) talked about a review of liver disease and liver care. That is taking place in 2022-23, and there should be a report after that. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) raised transplant care. I will ask the responsible Minister to write to them with further details about what is being done in that area.
The hon. Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Strangford said that many liver diseases can be prevented and are preventable, particularly in relation to alcohol, obesity and hepatitis, and I want to talk a little about what we are doing in those areas. Alcohol is the leading risk factor for liver disease, and identifying disease early in those at risk and supporting them to stop drinking is critical. If they stop drinking, that can halt or even reverse damage to the liver. People at risk of alcoholic liver disease are being identified and given early access to tests, to detect emerging liver disease through the health check and other means.
The NHS has also invested in the treatment of alcoholism: £27 million has been used to establish specialist alcohol care teams in hospitals with the highest rates of admissions related to alcohol dependence. Those specialist teams will help identify alcohol-dependent patients, start them on specialist alcohol treatment in hospital and support their transfer to community alcohol services.
Since April 2022, NHS England has introduced a measure known as commissioning for quality and innovation, which incentivises providers to improve earlier detection of liver disease for alcohol-dependent in-patients in acute and mental health services. We are also committed to increasing liver health investigations in community treatment settings. Through the drugs strategy, we are making the largest ever single increase in drug and alcohol treatment and recovery funding, with £780 million of additional investment over the next three years.
As hon. Members said, another major risk factor is obesity. Tackling obesity is a major priority for the Government. We have seen some important successes since 2016. The average sugar content of drinks subject to the soft drinks industry levy decreased by about 43% between 2015 and 2019. This month, regulations have been brought in about store placement of products that are high in fat, salt and sugar, so that they cannot be displayed in areas of the store that are attractive and available to children. There have also been the provisions set out in the Calorie Labelling (Out of Home Sector) (England) Regulations 2021 and an investment in further weight management services for people living with obesity.
I would like to turn to hepatitis B and C, which are also important risk factors for liver disease and primary liver cancer. Through the NHS hepatitis C virus elimination programme, we have reduced the number of people living with chronic hepatitis C virus infection in England by 37% since 2015. New treatment with direct-acting antivirals has massively improved the success of the treatment, with mortality from hepatitis infections falling by 35% since 2015. So that has already reaped rewards.
There is a new opt-out pilot programme of testing for HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C in emergency departments in areas of the country where HIV is most prevalent, which is a proven way of identifying new cases. During the first 100 days of the pilots in London, Blackpool, Brighton and Manchester, 328 people with hepatitis B were newly diagnosed, with 30 found to be lost to care. Each of them is an individual who will now be able to be treated effectively for the condition, which will reduce the risk of passing it on. Similarly, 137 people were newly diagnosed with hepatitis C, of whom 23 were found to be lost to care. Those are promising early results in just the first 100 days, and we now looking at what we can do to perhaps roll this programme out to other centres.
Many hon. Members talked about primary liver cancer, which has a tragic impact. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington said, the number of recorded deaths has more than doubled in the last two decades. Cancer Research UK statistics show that there are around 6,200 new cases diagnosed each year and, tragically, 5,800 deaths. Unfortunately, the five-year survival rate for people with liver cancer is poor, at only 13%, and that could be markedly improved by earlier diagnosis, as I mentioned.
To contribute to achieving a long-term plan ambition to diagnose 75% of cancers at an earlier stage by 2028, the NHS cancer programme has launched the early diagnosis liver programme. The programme aims to detect more liver cancers at an earlier stage, so that more patients can benefit from treatment. More people at a high risk of liver cancer are referred to six-monthly liver surveillance. The national cancer programme is working in partnership with the hepatitis C virus elimination programme to deliver 11 community liver health check pilots.
The pilots aim to support early detection and diagnosis of liver cancer by identifying and referring people with cirrhosis or advanced fibrosis into a liver surveillance pathway, and providing them with a peer supporter who can help and guide them through future appointments. The pilots will target people experiencing significant inequalities and those who disengage from the healthcare service, including homeless people, those with alcohol and substance addiction, sex workers, people in the justice system, disabled people and others. The hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) mentioned the workforce; she will be interested to know that over the last five years there has been a 20% expansion in the number of consultant hepatologists.
This is an important debate on a very important issue. We have heard some heartfelt contributions about the pain that liver disease and liver cancer bring to so many people and their loved ones across the United Kingdom. This Government are determined to take action and to make the changes that are needed to tackle this deadly disease.
Margaret Ferrier
Thank you, Mr Betts. I would like to speedily thank all the hon. and right hon. Members who took part in the debate. We heard from the hon. Members for Darlington (Peter Gibson), for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), who said there were no politics in this issue, which I absolutely agree with, and who spoke about transplants and the need to improve the geographical spread of adult liver services.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reminded us of the charities in this field, which are all doing such great work, and the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) offered his area for a new transplant facility for the north-west. I thank the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who said we have a unique opportunity to make a difference.
This is about early detection pathways, because rates vary considerably from region to region. We must have a full review of adult liver services, and GPs must have the means to assess fibrosis. Thank you, Mr Betts, for letting me wind up.
Written Statements
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Interim Infected-blood Compensation Payments and the Welsh Government Jobs Growth Plus Scheme: Clarification of Tax Treatment
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Richard Fuller)
Interim infected blood compensation payments
Following Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation, the Government previously announced that infected individuals and bereaved partners currently registered on the existing UK infected blood support schemes, and those who register from now to the inception of any future scheme, would receive an interim compensation payment of £100,0001.
The Government are today announcing that they will ensure that no income tax, capital gains tax, national insurance contributions or inheritance tax are charged on these payments. In addition, these payments will not be included as income for tax credit purposes. The Government will legislate to exempt these payments in due course.
In the interim, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will exercise its collection and management discretion and will not collect any tax on these payments once issued.
Jobs Growth Plus scheme
In addition, the Government will legislate in the Finance Bill 2022-23 to ensure that payments made under the engagement and advancement strands of the Jobs Growth Plus scheme by the Welsh Government will be exempt from income tax. This legislation will apply retrospectively from 1 April 2022, when payments from the scheme started.
HMRC will exercise its collection and management discretion and will not collect any income tax that may have been due on payments made from 1 April 2022 to the date the legislation takes effect.
These measures are being announced outside of the normal fiscal process in order to provide certainty regarding the tax treatment to those making the payments and the recipients.
1 https://www.infectedbloodinquiry.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-08/16082022_Minister%20for%20the%20Cabinet%20Office%20to%20Sir%20Brian%20Langstaff.pdf
[HCWS308]
Timing of Medium-Term Fiscal Plan
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Kwasi Kwarteng)
Today I can inform the House that I have asked the Office for Budget Responsibility to bring forward the date of its next forecast to 31 October.
Strong growth and sustainable public finances go hand in hand. Alongside the publication of the economic and fiscal outlook, I will set out the Government’s medium-term fiscal plan. This will set out further details on the Government’s fiscal rules, including ensuring that debt falls as a share of GDP in the medium term.
This forecast, in addition to the forecast that will be commissioned in spring, will fulfil the obligation for the OBR to produce at least two forecasts in a financial year, as is required by legislation.
[HCWS310]
Initial Teacher Training
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Jonathan Gullis)
Today, my Department is informing applicants of the outcomes of the final round of the application process to gain accreditation as a provider of initial teacher training from September 2024. This forms part of the ongoing initial teacher training reform announced on 1 December 2021.
The key aim of the reforms, which centre around the introduction of a new set of clear quality requirements, is to ensure high-quality teacher training is available in all areas of the country. Following the development of the early career framework and National Professional Qualifications, the reforms to ITT are the next step in realising our ambition to create a golden thread of evidence-based training, support and professional development, which will run through every phase of a teacher’s career. We know that the quality of teaching is the single most important in-school factor in improving outcomes for children, especially for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Being taught by a high-quality teacher can add almost half a GCSE grade per subject to a given pupil’s results.
As part of the provider accreditation process, both existing and prospective ITT providers were invited to apply for accreditation to deliver courses from September 2024, when the new quality requirements will come into effect. The process was designed to be proportionate but rigorous, with questions that reflected vital components of the ITT market review’s recommendations.
One hundred and seventy-nine providers have been awarded accreditation in total across the two rounds, and I am pleased to see the high quality of provision that has been accredited.
The Department will now work the accredited providers as part of the next stage of the reform process to ensure that all ITT courses are developed in line with the new criteria and are ready for delivery from September 2024. The Department will also work with these providers to ensure that they have strong partnerships in place to provide sufficient training places in the subjects, phases and areas where they are needed.
I would like to thank all ITT providers for engaging in the process and for their ongoing support as we implement the ITT market review. We understand that providers who have not received accreditation will be disappointed. My Department will work closely with these providers to support their next steps and look to facilitate partnership with accredited providers for those who want to continue to provide ITT from September 2024.
The Department’s priority will be ensuring that the new standards and expectations will continue to be met at all institutions delivering ITT, both accredited and through the formation of partnerships. As the market develops over the next two years, officials will continue to work closely with a range of sector experts to monitor the availability of provision across all regions. We will be encouraging providers who did not achieve accreditation to consider forming a partnership with an accredited provider in the areas where this is needed.
This is a significant step in the delivery of our ambitious programme to create a world-class teacher development system and transform the support teachers receive at every stage of their career—all the way from ITT and early career support, to specialisations and school leadership. The number of teachers in England remains high, with over 465,500—full-time equivalent—working in state-funded schools across the country, which is over 24,000 more than in 2010. I am confident that from 2024 the accredited providers will deliver high-quality, evidence-based, training in a reformed ITT market that prepares trainees to thrive in the classroom, wherever they are in the country.
[HCWS306]
Examinations in 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Kit Malthouse)
The Department of Education welcomed the successful return of summer exams and other formal assessments in 2022. Alongside Ofqual, we put in place a package of support to recognise disruption faced by the 2022 exam cohort while being clear of our intention to return to exams as normal in 2023.
In May, the Department and Ofqual confirmed that for exams and formal assessments in 2022-23 there would be usual arrangements for non-exam assessment and there would be full subject content coverage for all subjects.
On 29 September, the Department and Ofqual confirmed exams will largely return to well-established, pre-pandemic arrangements in summer 2023. In making these decisions, the Department considers the level of disruption experienced by the 2023 cohort over the course of their qualifications has not been as significant as that experienced by those who received qualifications in 2022 as they will have had more time to cover their curriculum, practise assessments, and access education recovery programmes and interventions. There have been no national school closures in the 2023 cohort’s GCSE/A-level teaching years, which are designed as two-year courses. The 2023 cohort had less overall absence, including all covid absences, in their year 10 autumn term than the 2022 cohort did. Furthermore, the Department believes it is important to return to pre-pandemic arrangements to build confidence in the credibility and validity of qualifications.
In that context, the Department confirms that advance information will not be provided for any exams taken in summer 2023. However, acknowledging students may still have experienced a level of disruption due to the pandemic, the Department has decided that formulae and equation sheets for GCSE mathematics, physics and combined sciences exams should be provided in summer 2023, as was the case for exams in 2022. As most students take at least one of these subjects at GCSE, this will provide broad support for all GCSE students. We have asked Ofqual to put this into place and they have launched a consultation on this.
On grading, Ofqual have confirmed the position they set out in September 2021, to return to pre-pandemic grading in 2023.
Looking back over the past three years, the Department and Ofqual are keen to build resilience in the exam system and learn lessons from the alternative arrangements that have been put in place. Jointly with Ofqual, we have launched a consultation that seeks views on how centres should gather and retain evidence from students so that it can be used both to support students’ revision and exam preparedness and could be used as a basis to determine students’ grades in the unlikely event that formal exams and assessments do not go ahead as planned. It invites views on whether the guidance proposed will minimise the burden on centres and students, and if it will support centres in providing the best possible preparation for students for their exams.
[HCWS307]
Electronic Monitoring
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Brandon Lewis)
We set out in our beating crime plan how we will improve public protection and increase public confidence in the justice system. We are determined to empower the police and probation to keep us safe; through providing them with the technology and resources they need, we will crack down on the repeat offenders who are blighting our neighbourhoods.
Since April 2021 our acquisitive crime project has been using GPS electronic location monitoring to track the movements of burglars, robbers and thieves released on licence and serving a standard determinate sentence of 12 months or more across 19 police force areas. I have now laid a statutory instrument to expand this world-first project to include offenders serving shorter sentences of 90 days or more. This will come into force on 26 October.
Electronic monitoring will be a compulsory condition on the offender’s licence for the remainder of their sentence up to a maximum of 12 months, other than in exceptional circumstances where probation assess that an offender’s health or personal situation make the use of a tag inappropriate.
Through this measure we aim to deter further offending and reduce crime; expanding the project to offenders serving shorter sentences will increase the number of offenders captured by the legislation by around 2,000 by March 2025.
This expansion will be subject to robust evaluation, including of impact on reoffending and cost-effectiveness. The evaluation will be conducted by the Ministry of Justice data and analysis directorate; the final evaluation conclusions report will be peer reviewed by independent academics before publication. It will allow us to better assess the most effective period for electronic monitoring of acquisitive offenders, helping to identify what is necessary and proportionate use and therefore influencing future decisions on how electronic monitoring can be used to reduce reoffending.
The location monitoring data is used to support the work of probation and the police. Using “crime mapping” technology we overlay police acquisitive crime data with tagging data to identify if any tagged offenders were in the vicinity of a given crime, to better equip the police to investigate offences, apprehend or rule out suspects and to support prosecutions. Alongside this, probation practitioners are provided with summaries of an offender’s movements and compliance behaviour and, to further enhance supervision, they can investigate an offender’s movements in closer detail using a self-service portal.
Throughout this joint endeavour between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, feedback from policing and probation has been positive, and expansion is supported by them.
A copy of this statement has also been laid in the House of Lords by my colleague, the Lord Bellamy.
[HCWS312]
Transgender Prisoners
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Brandon Lewis)
On 4 October, I announced reforms to our policy for the allocation of transgender prisoners. Under the reforms, transgender prisoners with male genitalia should no longer be held in the general women’s estate. This will not be a blanket rule; exemptions to these new rules will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
This will also apply to transgender women who have been convicted of a sex offence.
Further detail about these reforms will be announced when we publish our updated transgender prisoners policy framework before the end of the year.
[HCWS313]
Machinery of Government
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Elizabeth Truss)
I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention the following machinery of Government changes.
Responsibility for Union and devolution policy will move to the Cabinet Office under the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in his role as Minister for Intergovernmental Relations. This will allow the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to lead the UK Government’s engagement with the devolved Administrations and drive forward cross-Government efforts to deliver tangible improvements for people across the UK, working closely with the territorial Offices.
The Brexit Opportunities Unit will move from the Cabinet Office to sit under the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. This will bring together work to tackle EU red tape, seize post-Brexit opportunities and efforts to ensure the regulatory and business environment enables the UK to attract investment and boost growth.
Both machinery of Government changes will take effect immediately.
[HCWS311]
Bereavement Benefits
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Claire Coutinho)
My noble Friend, the Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) has made the following written statement:
We have today laid the draft Bereavement Benefits (2022) Remedial Order. Copies of the draft remedial order and explanatory memorandum are available in the Journal Office and the Vote Office (Commons) and the Printed Paper Office (Lords). We have also laid the Government response to representations made on proposals for a draft Bereavement Benefits (Remedial) Order 2021, including the eighth report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2021-22 (HC 594, HL 91). We would like to thank the Committee, and other Members, for their observations on the draft proposed order.
[HCWS309]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I remind your Lordships that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (High-Risk Countries) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (High-Risk Countries) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022.
Relevant documents: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, due to the sad death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the debate on this statutory instrument has been delayed, but I am pleased to be taking it forward now. This SI is largely administrative and makes only minor updates to provisions under the money laundering regulations.
This Government continue to recognise the threat that economic crime poses to the UK and our international partners and are committed to combating money laundering and terrorist financing. Illicit finance causes significant social and economic costs through its links to serious and organised crime. It is a threat to our national security and risks damaging our international reputation as a fair, open, rules-based economy. It also undermines the integrity and stability of our financial sector and can reduce opportunities for legitimate business in the UK.
That is why we have taken significant action to combat economic crime, including legislating for the Economic Crime (Anti-Money Laundering) Levy and the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act. We are going further by developing a second iteration of the landmark economic crime plan, and by introducing the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which has had its First Reading in the House of Commons. This Bill will include significant reforms to strengthen the role of Companies House. We are also working closely with the private sector and our international partners to improve the investigation of economic crime, strengthen international standards on beneficial ownership transparency and crack down on illicit financial flows. These efforts are making a difference. Over the last five years we have confiscated over £1 billion in criminal assets, and over the last year we have increased money laundering proceedings by 9%.
The money laundering regulations support our overall efforts. As the UK’s core legislative framework for tackling money laundering and terrorist financing, they set out various measures that businesses must take to protect the UK from illicit financial flows. Under these regulations, businesses are required to conduct enhanced checks on business relationships and transactions with high-risk third countries. These are countries identified as having strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing regimes which could pose a significant threat to the UK’s financial system. This statutory instrument amends the money laundering regulations to update the UK’s list of high-risk third countries by adding Gibraltar and removing Malta from the list. This is to mirror lists published by the Financial Action Task Force, the global standard-setter for anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing set up by the G7.
For the purposes of the high-risk third countries list, countries include territories and jurisdictions. Therefore Gibraltar, as a UK overseas territory, is treated as a country in the high-risk third countries list. Gibraltar has been added to the Financial Action Task Force’s list as it has not completed the action plan set by the Financial Action Task Force. Improvements are still needed in Gibraltar’s use of effective sanctions to address anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing breaches and Gibraltar’s actions to recover and confiscate criminal assets. The UK has offered support to Gibraltar throughout the Financial Action Task Force process and will continue to do so.
Malta has been removed from the Financial Action Task Force list after addressing the remaining commitments in its Financial Action Task Force action plan. This includes improvements in the detection of inaccurate company ownership information and the pursuit of tax-based money laundering cases, among other areas.
This is the fourth time we have updated the UK list to respond to the evolving risks from third countries. This update ensures that the UK remains at the forefront of global standards on anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing. In 2018, the Financial Action Task Force assessed that the UK has one of the toughest anti-money laundering regimes in the world. The UK was a founding member of this international body and we continue to work closely and align with international partners such as the G7 to drive improvements in anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing systems globally.
Lastly, this high-risk third-country list is one of many mechanisms that the Government have to clamp down on illicit financial flows from overseas threats. We will continue to use other mechanisms available to respond to other country threats, including applying financial sanctions as necessary.
This statutory instrument will enable the money laundering regulations to continue to work as effectively as possible to protect the UK financial system. It is crucial for protecting UK businesses and the financial system from money launderers and terrorist financiers. Therefore, I hope colleagues—or a colleague—will join me in supporting the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
After the Summer Recess, it is good to be back in this crowded Room. I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations. As he outlined, they contain the latest updates to the Financial Action Task Force list of high-risk countries. We are supportive of FATF’s work and these regulations, though I hope the Minister will be able to answer some questions for me.
In yesterday’s economy debate, I raised the new Administration’s apparent dislike of what they call economic orthodoxy. We saw the role of certain economic and financial institutions questioned during the Conservative Party leadership campaign. The occupants of Downing Street have doubled down on some of their criticisms in the intervening weeks. There have long been concerns that the Government have not taken money laundering seriously. That concern has related mostly to Russian money, with feet dragged in relation to a register of overseas entities. Can the Minister confirm today whether and to what extent the UK Government remain committed to FATF and its output? We were not always convinced of the previous Administration’s commitment to implementing FATF’s country-specific recommendations. Are we likely to see those timescales slip further still under the new Chancellor?
While this question does not relate directly to this SI, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, chose not to answer it last night, so I am tempted to have another go. Do the Government remain committed to bringing forward the second economic crime Bill? If so, when will we see it?
Turning to the detail of the regulations, could the Minister comment on the Government’s view regarding the addition of Gibraltar? He will know that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee wrote to the Treasury regarding Gibraltar’s appearance on the list, asking what assistance, if any, the Government were prepared to offer. Does the position outlined by the former Economic Secretary to the Treasury that Gibraltar does not require any bilateral assistance to implement various actions remain current? Can the Minister confirm whether the newly appointed Treasury Ministers have had any contact with their Gibraltarian counterparts on these issues?
Finally, I thank officials at the Treasury for taking the time to discuss this statutory instrument and its Explanatory Memorandum with me before the summer break. We debate these instruments perhaps three times a year yet, despite our general familiarity with the subject, the Explanatory Notes are often unclear and inconsistent. No matter how technical the matters we consider may be, it should be possible for Explanatory Memoranda to make the subject accessible to a wider audience. Indeed, that is the aim of the Cabinet Office guidance. I hope the Minister will take that on board, as we are likely to have a high volume of Treasury regulations coming forward in the months ahead.
With that, the Opposition are pleased to support these regulations. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my broader questions about the Government’s efforts to combat money laundering, and I would be happy for him to write with any detail that may not be available to him this afternoon.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his remarks, and I shall endeavour to answer as many of his questions as possible. I too take note of the fact that this is rather an empty Committee. That is rather a shame. I certainly hoped that there might have been more people contributing to a debate on this important subject.
I reiterate what I said in my opening remarks very briefly: the Government are taking proactive action to ensure that these high-risk third-country changes are made, and that similar anti-money laundering controls are put in place and are making a difference. I will focus on sanctions for a moment: just last year, the Financial Conduct Authority secured a fine of around £265 million against a large bank for breaches of the money laundering regulations, so these regulations have to have some bite. I hope that what we are bringing in will provide some bite.
Turning to the noble Lord’s questions, I can confirm first that the Government remain entirely committed to FATF and its international standards on anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing. As he knows, in 2019 the UK was assessed as having one of the strongest regimes for combating illicit finance, but I reassure him that we are not complacent. We are committed to addressing the remaining gaps in the UK’s system as soon as possible, and ahead of the UK’s next FATF evaluation.
Just a few weeks ago, we introduced the economic crime Bill before Parliament. This Bill, once agreed, will introduce the largest reforms to Companies House in over 170 years, making it harder for criminals to misuse companies to launder their dirty money. It will also improve law enforcement’s ability to seize and confiscate criminal assets held in crypto assets. We have Second Reading of the Bill on Thursday and are entirely committed to taking it forward. A draft of the Bill is now available on the Parliament website, should the noble Lord wish to access it.
The Government are also currently working with industry on the second economic crime plan, which I hope will provide some reassurance. The plan will be published in due course and will set out the steps the Government are taking with industry to tackle economic crime over the next three years.
On Gibraltar itself, bearing in mind the questions that the noble Lord raised, we stand by the technical decision of the Financial Action Task Force, of which the UK is an active member. In June, the FATF recognised that Gibraltar had made considerable progress since its FATF evaluation, but that it still needed to make improvements in key areas to complete its action plan. In particular, improvements are still needed to strengthen confiscation of criminal proceeds and increase supervisory outreach to non-financial sectors, such as lawyers. But throughout the FATF process, the UK has been working closely with Gibraltar. We have kept in close contact, and indeed have offered our support. Both Gibraltar and the UK are confident that it will be able to make the necessary reforms to be removed from the list within a short timeframe. By aligning the UK’s approach to the FATF, the UK is in line with international standards, and the identification of countries is underpinned by the FATF’s consistent and technical methodology.
Nearly lastly, let me turn to the noble Lord’s comments on Russia, which he touched on. We are absolutely taking a firm stance against Russia; we are working with our allies, and have introduced the widest possible financial sanctions to cripple Putin and his kleptocrats. Since the invasion of Ukraine, the UK has introduced sanctions to over 1,000 individuals and 100 entities. We are also restricting Russian access to finance, with asset freezes of 18 of Russia’s major banks, with global assets worth £940 billion.
Just to complete my response to the noble Lord—and I thank him again for his questions—I make a very brief comment about his concerns about how the Government view “certain economic and financial institutions”, to quote him. I reassure him that the Government remain fully respectful of such institutions. No names of institutions were mentioned by him, so I think that I shall not mention any either. It is just for the record to say that. As the papers have been saying, and as we know, the Chancellor meets the governor regularly to discuss current issues, while respecting that the Bank of England, for example, remains thoroughly independent.
I hope that the Committee has found today’s sitting informative and that it will join me in supporting these regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Motor Fuel (Composition and Content) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Motor Fuel (Composition and Content) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations relate to the introduction of E10 petrol in Northern Ireland. Regulations relating to the introduction of E10 petrol in Great Britain were considered and agreed to by your Lordships’ House in 2021, and I should note that this introduction has been successful, with no significant concerns raised.
E10 petrol contains up to 10% of renewable ethanol, double the amount blended into E5 petrol. Increasing the renewable ethanol content in standard grade petrol across the UK can reduce annual carbon dioxide emissions by 750,000 tonnes a year, helping us to meet our ambitious climate targets. The regulations’ purpose is to introduce E10 as standard petrol in Northern Ireland, while ensuring that the current E5 grade remains available for those who need it. This will bring petrol grades in Northern Ireland in line with those in Great Britain, where E10 was introduced in September 2021. We have completed the notification procedures required under the Northern Ireland protocol, meaning that an introduction in Northern Ireland is now possible.
E10 allows us to cut carbon emissions from cars, motorbikes and other petrol-powered equipment in use on our roads today. This is done by simply increasing the amount of renewable fuel blended into standard petrol. It is one of very few measures available to us which has an immediate impact. E10 is a proven fuel that has been successfully introduced in Great Britain and many nations around the world to deliver carbon savings. Following the introduction of E10 in Great Britain last year, these regulations ensure that consumers are provided with a consistent petrol grade across the UK. It is worth noting that the Republic of Ireland intends to introduce E10 in January 2023.
The UK has a valuable bioethanol industry, which has already benefited from the increased demand created by the introduction of E10 in Great Britain. Following our policy announcement to introduce E10 across the UK, one large facility operator announced that it would recommence production. The domestic bioethanol industry supports high-skilled jobs and improves our energy independence, delivering on a range of government priorities such as growth and energy security.
These production facilities also play an important role in their local economy, employing hundreds of skilled workers directly and supporting thousands of jobs in the wider community. That community includes the agricultural sector, with locally grown, low-grade feed wheat used to produce ethanol. Furthermore, valuable co-products of bioethanol, such as high-protein animal feed and stored carbon dioxide used by the food industry, reduce our reliance on imports, thus increasing our domestic resilience. It is vital to support these industries as we grow our economy and progress towards net zero by 2050.
Introducing E10 is part of a wider set of measures to encourage renewable fuels. Overall, renewable fuel blending is incentivised through the renewable transport fuel obligation, or RTFO, obligating larger fuel suppliers to supply renewable fuels. However, the RTFO does not prescribe how to meet low-carbon fuel supply targets, nor does it require specific fuel blends; it is market driven. It is therefore necessary to introduce the obligation to supply specific fuel blends to remove market barriers. This has been proven to be successful by the introduction of first E5 and then E10 petrol in the UK, as well as B7 diesel.
We have opted for introduction in Northern Ireland in November, as fuel suppliers and retailers have made it clear that an introduction at the same time as or shortly after the change from summer to winter fuel specification is the most efficient way to introduce E10 into the fuel system.
Over 95% of petrol-powered vehicles on the road are compatible with E10 petrol, and this figure is increasing all the time. All new cars manufactured since 2011 are compatible with E10 petrol, and most cars and motorcycles manufactured since the late 1990s are also approved by manufacturers to use E10. However, some older vehicles are not cleared to use E10. That is why this instrument includes provisions to keep the current E5 petrol, which contains up to 5% ethanol, available in high-octane “super” grade.
The same set of derogations and exceptions that apply to the supply of E5 and E10 in Great Britain in case of supply issues or infrastructure constraints will apply in Northern Ireland as well. This means that very small filling stations will be exempt from having to sell E10. Additionally, if supplying petrol with the required minimum ethanol content is not feasible for short periods of time, say due to factors such as technical or supply issues, the Secretary of State for Transport can grant refineries or blending facilities temporary derogations to ensure that fuel supply is not interrupted.
We have launched a comprehensive communications campaign involving local radio, roadside posters, social media and information at forecourts. This informs motorists in Northern Ireland of the changes that will be made to petrol this autumn—subject, of course, to the approval of this instrument—and directs vehicle owners to GOV.UK, where there is an online compatibility checker so that people can see whether their car is compatible.
In proposing this statutory instrument, my department has carefully considered a balance of interests, as we did when we introduced E10 petrol in Great Britain. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her excellent introduction. Obviously, we welcome this statutory instrument. However, I want to use this opportunity to register my concern at the continued lack of an Executive in Northern Ireland. That is an issue that goes well beyond this. The lack of the Executive serves the people of Northern Ireland very badly indeed, condemning them to the slow lane on so many important issues. There is an example in this SI of how they are disadvantaged.
Paragraph 12.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum makes clear that the “added complexity” of supplying 95 octane E5 grade fuel to Northern Ireland while the rest of the UK has moved on to E10 grade has, not surprisingly, meant additional costs to producers. It goes on to make it clear that producers have had to provide
“separate production processes and storage.”
Paragraph 12.3 says that the costs of this have
“already been passed on to motorists in Northern Ireland”,
even though they have not been enjoying the advantages of it. They are paying the price without getting the benefits. Happily, however, this SI brings Northern Ireland in line with the rest of the UK. Presumably the SI includes any useful lessons learned from the Great Britain implementation. Maybe the Minister could tell us whether any specific issues have been incorporated as a result of this.
I have a few questions. The Minister has answered the first one; I was going to refer to the tight timescale. I see that the Government have anticipated that and have launched their information and awareness-raising campaign. There are older vehicles that are incompatible, of course, and there will continue to be supplies of the old grade of fuel for this reason. Classic cars might be the main reason for that, but petrol is not used just for cars. Indeed, the SI refers to its use for equipment. I declare an interest as the owner of what might politely be described as a classic petrol lawnmower. Does the public information campaign cover equipment in general—not just lawnmowers but other equipment—and not just cars? Putting the wrong petrol in can be quite disastrous.
These regulations impose requirements on petrol filling stations to supply certain types of fuel. They impose additional responsibilities on those filling stations, so I use this opportunity to ask the Minister whether the Government will give urgent consideration to requiring them also to provide electric vehicle charging points. They are beginning to do so on certain rare occasions in Great Britain. The faster this happens, the greater we can all reap the environmental advantages of electric vehicles. EVs now encompass 16% of the new car market. Petrol stations are losing their market relatively fast and need to adapt. I think an imposition—with a timescale, of course—would be very useful in ensuring that we make the transition as soon as possible.
Paragraph 7.12 refers to fuel terminals still
“unable to blend … ethanol into their petrol”
and gives them at least two years’ exemption. I am concerned that these still exist. We have known for a long time that this change was coming, so I thought providers would have adapted by now. Can the Minister tell us what percentage of terminals this applies to? Is it just one or two? I notice that apparently there are none identified in Northern Ireland. Are we talking about a big section of the market in the UK, or just one or two outliers?
Finally, the documentation states that most petrol sold in Northern Ireland—which itself represents 3.5% of the total UK market—comes from suppliers who also supply the rest of the UK. I assume that some of the petrol sold in Northern Ireland comes over the border from the Republic, and I would be interested to know what percentage. Are the rules and regulations that now apply in the Republic identical to those being imposed on Northern Ireland, or is there some variation at some point? Obviously, this would have implications in terms of the protocol as well as a practical implication for motorists. Having put forward those questions, I am very pleased to see this measure before us.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this SI, which of course we will support. However, having done a little research on this issue, I have ended up with a few questions. First, I think she said that the situation in Northern Ireland and mainland UK will be precisely the same after 1 November. It seems to me that we have E10 and E5, and 97 and 95. As I understand it, in Northern Ireland all the E5 will be 97 and all the E10 will be 95. I should know this from when I fill up my car, but is that the situation in the UK today?
The second area I am interested in, from doing research on that glorious but occasionally seductively dangerous Google, is that there have been questions about whether there is a fuel consumption penalty. Indeed, looking it up on GOV.UK, there is an acknowledgement that there is. The government website suggests that it is 1% or 2%; some motoring magazines have suggested it is rather higher. It would not require much of an increase in overall fuel consumption to arguably negate the advantages of ethanol in the fuel.
If one is unfortunate enough to own one of the 5% of cars which, I think, are not E10 compatible—or perhaps fortunate because they are some of the nicest cars around—it seems that one would have to go to E5 97. My general experience is that 97 is substantially more expensive than E10 95, so it seems to be something of a penalty. Indeed, it might lead some people to use E10 even though they know their vehicle is incompatible. Can the Minister give us some feel for the impact on the engine of consuming incompatible fuel E10 95 instead of the E5 97 that should be used?
GOV.UK explained—it is set out in the EM—that carbon dioxide emissions are reduced by this process. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the mechanisms by which that is achieved. I have to say that until today I thought petrol was petrol, but when I got on to Google I discovered that it is a gigantic mixture of all sorts of things, and that it varies according to the time of year, and so on. However, it is a hydrocarbon—that is, it takes its energy from releasing hydrogen and carbon from the molecules and creating water and CO2. That must be as true for ethanol because its chemical formula contains only carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, and, as far as I can tell, all the components of petrol contain carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. I therefore find it difficult to see how the emissions from the vehicle would be different. I can see that there is a difference between fuel which comes from various processing of vegetable matter, which of course captures the CO2 in its creation and then it goes through a cycle in order to be able to go into a car.
I also discovered with my friend Google that there are worries about some issues such as condensation, and potentially water in fuel as result of that, and about the possibility of degradation of hoses and seals. I wonder to what extent in this introduction those concerns have been taken account of. Otherwise, this is a wonderful idea and I beg to support it.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for their consideration of the statutory instrument today. I am pleased that they are both able to support it, and they had some very good questions, definitely one of which I had to go and look up after I spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, this morning; I am very pleased to have an answer but I will leave it to the end, as it is my piece de resistance.
I turn first to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, although this also applies to some of the issues the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, raised. We have had this fuel in Great Britain now since September 2021 so, if there were any significant concerns, they would have been raised. We are not aware of any. I recognise that some motoring magazines might raise certain questions, but certainly there is no evidence at the moment that there is a significant problem with the introduction. The noble Baroness asked whether we had learned anything from the introduction in Great Britain. One of the key things that we learned was to make sure that we made the introduction when the specification of the fuel changes from summer to winter, so that you get the throughput at the same time as you are trying to flush through the winter grade, in this case, into Northern Ireland. In broad terms, therefore, as regards this introduction, where there are any risks they have been mitigated or we are aware of them, and otherwise I expect a very smooth introduction.
Of course, it is true that this SI was delayed a little by the sad death of Her Majesty the Queen; that is why the communications campaign in Northern Ireland has already started. The noble Baroness spoke about classic cars and indeed classic lawnmowers. We are aware that a number of items of equipment will need to continue to use E5. E5 will remain available, and we will make sure that the communications include guidance for owners to check their manufacturer’s instructions to see whether E5 is suitable. In the vast majority of cases, they can just use E10 and then E5 if it is available. Light aircraft should also be able to continue to use E5. Again, as with the introduction in Great Britain, although we noted it and it was a potential issue, it has not turned out to be the case.
The noble Baroness mentioned EV charging points and I look forward, now that I am back in my role, to speaking with her further about them. I note that we have a new Minister for the Future of Transport, whom I was speaking to only today. I am not saying that the last Minister was slacking at all, but the new Minister has come at it with great new vigour to look through all our plans, to make sure that the funding is going to the places which need it most. We have to fund areas where there is a market failure because there is a significant private sector there that is willing to invest, and we need to make sure that we target those areas—for example, rural areas—where the value-for-money case for the private sector might not be so good, but we absolutely need to get those EV chargers there.
On the percentage of terminals that cannot blend, I can say that bat the moment there are two terminals, which represent less than 5% of total UK petrol production. I am afraid that the point about the percentage of petrol from the Republic is a step too far, but I will write if we have that information. When the Republic introduces E10 in January, that will be consistent across the island of Ireland and within the whole of the UK. There will be consistency for the vast majority of people who are driving compatible cars.
I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, slightly lost me with his first point about Northern Ireland and the mainland and 95 and 97. I will go back to read it again to make sure that we can respond properly and that we have fully understood his concern about the supply of 95, 97, E5 and E10. He is right to note that there is a penalty in terms of miles per gallon when using blended bioethanol. We think it supplies about 1.7% less energy. As we noted when we did the last SIs, it is probably about the same as driving with the air conditioning on or driving with slightly flat tyres. It is not a game-changing decrease in the energy supplied from the petrol. That impact was of course included in the impact assessment on whether it was a good idea to do this at all. The impact on the consumer is fairly marginal.
I turn to the costs for those who have an incompatible vehicle. As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, mentioned, some classic cars cannot run on E10 and would need to continue to use E5, which will continue to be available. I recognise that it might be a little more expensive than the E10 prices one would hope to see. For those who are unwilling to pay for super grade petrol, there are very good second-hand alternatives on the market. Unfortunately, that will probably be the option that they have to pursue.
As for what happens if you put the wrong grade in, whether E10 or E5, if you do it infrequently it is unlikely to damage your vehicle at all. It is not like when you put diesel in your petrol car or vice versa—then you really are in trouble. Your car will be fine and you can just go back to using the right one. Should you put the wrong one in on occasion, it is not going to be too much of a problem.
Then we come to carbon calculations. When I spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, this morning, he got me thinking. Of course, he is absolutely right. I had to get my head around this. It is true that when you put bioethanol into petrol, it is combusted and it produces carbon dioxide. However, the point is that the carbon dioxide in that bioethanol is from the short-term carbon cycle. It is from the air and you could probably calculate how many months it has been gone. It is from the air, it goes into feedstuffs, it goes into the vehicle, it comes out of the tailpipe and it returns to the air again. Because it is from the short-term cycle, it is basically a case of taking it out temporarily and putting it back. Using bioethanol is stopping us using that percentage of fossil fuel-based petrol, which comes from stored carbon and is what we do not want to add to the atmosphere. That was a great learning point for me and I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising it. I am going to do a bit more digging to make sure we fully understand that. We know that this is not carbon dioxide free at the tailpipe, but it is a short-term cycle rather than the long-term release of greenhouse gases, which is absolutely what we are trying to reduce in this country. On that basis, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Merchant Shipping (High Speed Craft) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Merchant Shipping (High Speed Craft) Regulations 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, these draft regulations relate to the safety of high-speed craft, which are generally all rapid passenger craft but can be cargo craft. They primarily operate domestically in UK waters, although some operate between the UK and the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and France.
High-speed craft are defined in the International Maritime Organization’s International Code of Safety for High-Speed Craft, SOLAS chapter X. They include some twin-hulled vessels, hydrofoils and air-cushioned vessels such as hovercraft. Examples include the Isle of Wight hovercraft and the Thames Clippers. The definition of a high-speed craft set out in the international documents relates not only to its speed but to its displacement.
These regulations will be made under the safety powers conferred by the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. However, they are subject to the enhanced scrutiny procedures under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as they will revoke the Merchant Shipping (High Speed Craft) Regulations 2004, which were made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. That is a long way of explaining why these have an affirmative attachment to them; in and of themselves, they are fairly straightforward and mostly technical. They do not implement any EU obligations.
As I have noted, these high-speed craft regulations replace those from 2004 to implement the most up-to-date requirements of chapter X of the annexe to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974, known as SOLAS, affecting high-speed craft. Chapter X gives effect to the high-speed craft codes of 1994 and 2000, which contain the requirements applying to high-speed craft. As their name suggests, these codes were first agreed internationally by the International Maritime Organization in 1994 and 2000, but they have been updated, most recently in 2020.
What do these regulations do? They further improve the safety standard for high-speed craft and will enable the UK to enforce these requirements against UK high-speed craft, wherever they may be in the world, and non-UK high-speed craft when in UK waters. This provides a level playing field for industry. These amendments bring UK legislation up to date and in line with internationally agreed requirements.
The updated requirements of SOLAS chapter X, which these regulations seek to implement, introduce both a new requirement for crew drills on entry to and rescue from enclosed spaces, such as machinery spaces, to be conducted every two months, and the recording of those drills alongside other similar recordings currently kept for fire drills and other life-saving appliance drills. These updated requirements came into force internationally on 1 January 2015.
In addition, the regulations implement two further changes to the codes. First, they introduce updates to the requirements for life-saving appliances relating to rescue boats and life rafts. Secondly, they abolish the current monopoly on satellite service provision to ships, opening the market to any provider meeting the required standards. Both these measures came into force internationally on 1 January 2020.
While many other nations adopt such resolutions into their domestic law immediately, our dualist legal system can lead to delays and a backlog has occurred. We intend to avoid such delays in future by using ambulatory references in our regulations. Indeed, we are using ambulatory references in these regulations to put matters agreed at the IMO into our domestic law.
On the UK flag we have about 30 high-speed craft to which these new regulations apply. There are no foreign-flag high-speed craft operating in UK waters. The 1994 code applies to older vessels and the 2000 code to vessels built or substantially modified in or after 2002.
I believe that is about as much as I can say about these regulations. I have one more thought: they also make amendments to the Merchant Shipping (Fees) Regulations 2018. That is purely to enable fees to be charged for the inspection, survey and certification of these high-speed craft by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. On that note, I beg to move.
Lord Greenway (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for describing these regulations. As she said, under chapter X of the IMO’s SOLAS convention the high-speed craft codes are regularly updated to incorporate advances in safety technology. That is the reason for these regulations.
The changes the Minister outlined are acceptable to the UK shipping industry, as evidenced by the response to the consultation process. The addition of the ambulatory reference provision to keep UK law aligned with IMO obligations is also welcome. As she said, we hope it will speed up the process as this is just another of those maritime SIs that we should have discussed some time ago.
I understand that many of the changes proposed have already been adopted by UK owners, especially by those trading internationally, because it is in their own interests to do so. I believe that some of them would like to have more advance warning of what new changes are being discussed at the IMO so that they have an idea of what might come through the pipeline.
As the Minister said, these high-speed craft come in many shapes and sizes. I have been slightly mystified as to what the size parameters are, because the only thing I have found relates to cubic metres, and I cannot relate cubic metres to a vessel. She mentioned Thames Clippers, so it obviously comes down to a relatively small craft. An upper limit does not really apply, because these craft do not get to enormous sizes.
Another area for high-speed craft, and one that is rapidly increasing, is in the offshore service sector. I looked this up to see what was going on, and I understand that there is already a High-Speed Offshore Service Craft Code. Presumably, those sorts of craft are not included in these regulations. If the Minister and her advisers could help me with a parameter for these regulations, in relation to the vessels they cover, I would be most grateful.
In the offshore sector there is enormously interesting development going on, with the latest things being all-electric craft that fly on foils. Seen from ahead, you wonder how on earth they manage to go about their business, when the ship is high out of the water and there is just a single foil going down into the water. These are exciting prospects and ones that I hope will lead to great commercial success in future. In the mean- time, I welcome the regulations.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, it is good to see another small step on the long path facing the Department for Transport, as it tries to catch up with the backlog of maritime legislation waiting to be adopted into UK law. The legendary Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has been watching this process and has produced three reports on this problem over three different Sessions of this House. The impact of this backlog is that the UK is failing, in effect, to live up to its international obligations, which is a matter of concern to many of us—and I think is undoubtedly a matter of concern to the Minister, to judge by what she has said before. Some of her colleagues are not that concerned about international obligations, but I know that she is.
This current lapse seems to be a potential matter of life and death, because these regulations relate to chapter X of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974. Since they also specifically refer to high-speed craft, I assume that there is potential for considerable risk.
I have read the legislation and the Explanatory Memorandum, and I remain a bit confused as to exactly what is covered, because the Explanatory Memorandum specifically refers to
“fire-retardant aspects of construction and fire detection and extinction devices, life-saving appliances (including life-rafts and lifejackets), navigational and stability systems”.
Paragraph 13.3 of the EM refers to these as having
“key implications for safe operation”
and it seems obvious that they do, because they are an area where technical improvements in design and manufacture will have increased the effectiveness of that equipment. But the legislation also talks about people being drunk at sea, obeying orders to leave the ship and so on, so I would welcome clarity from the Minister as to exactly which of these sets of issues we are very late in implementing, if I can put it that way. Several different dates are fired at us in the Explanatory Memorandum. How late are the Government in implementing this? Exactly how much of this is gravely overdue?
When we have discussed other delayed maritime legislation, the Minister has attempted to reassure us that, for various reasons, we have been in effect carrying out the legislation anyway. The noble Lord has just referred to the fact that a craft operating internationally would have had to do that, but those operating just domestically would effectively have been exempt. It seems to me that if we are referring to changes made to chapter X in 2014, we are eight years behind schedule. Have I understood this right? Can the Minister tell us whether there have been any incidents or accidents where the lack of this legislation has been a factor?
The delay in bringing these new powers definitely seems to have been one of the more reprehensible issues that have come from the delay in so much of this maritime legislation, and therefore I am extremely pleased to see that the department is continuing to try to catch up on this issue.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, we are looking at the high-speed craft regulations—the high-speed craft code. I assume—I may be corrected—that the code is de facto in two parts. There is presumably a part of the code which relates to construction—I noticed the reference to stability—and clearly there is a part which relates to operation. That is a classic division in international transport; it happens in aviation, and essentially, the international code for the construction of aeroplanes is obeyed more or less by every country to the same standard, which makes life very straightforward. There is a code about operation but clearly, that tends also to be influenced by the domestic philosophies of the airlines and operators concerned. Is my assumption that the code divides into two accurate?
Secondly, to what vessels or craft does the code apply? I discovered the formula—I cannot remember whether it is in the Explanatory Memorandum, the regulations or on Google, but wherever it is, how I would apply it did not entirely leap to my mind. However, as I understand it, it relates to volume and it then manipulates that volume to create a speed, which defines whether a craft is high-speed. If it goes faster than that, it is a high-speed craft, and if it goes slower than that, it is not. However, it means that the image of what a high-speed craft is is not self-evident. I understand that the “Queen Mary 2”, for instance, can achieve 30 knots—it normally goes around the world at about 20 or 22 knots. That sounds quite fast, but I believe it is not a high-speed craft. Equally, smaller vessels—the Minister mentioned smaller vessels which operate domestically—which clearly do not do 30 knots are categorised as high-speed craft.
My next question is on whether we have any in the UK; the noble Baroness has already told us that we do. If my conceptual division is right, clearly, this code would apply to how they are operated. I presume it applies to how they are manufactured. The question then is: do we manufacture any of these vessels in the UK? My sense from my Google exploration is that we do not, although I may have misread that. Are we comfortable that the philosophy behind the code has been applied in the original construction of these vessels?
Finally, the code is different. It says in paragraph 7.3 of the EM—and in the code, which I have looked at only very superficially:
“The HSC Codes take more of a risk-based approach than many maritime standards, which tend to be more prescriptive.”
Indeed, it is the history of transport that most specifications originate from simply building the particular transport facility, be it a train, a boat or an aeroplane, seeing how many of them crash, and from each crash you learn something new and put that in a regulation. You end up with a large amount of prescriptive things, and if you do it enough, you get pretty close to the optimum. Indeed, the high performance of aviation recently has shown that this approach works—sadly, with the notable exception of the 737 Max; it took two horrific accidents for Boeing to take its responsibilities seriously.
The interesting point is that taking a risk-based approach to safety, as opposed to a learning-based approach that creates the prescriptive codes, requires a different philosophical approach by the safety regulators. If the Minister agrees with my division between these two approaches, can she say whether the people who now enforce that code in the UK are equipped and educated to move from the prescriptive way of going about these things, which in a sense is quite challenging but really straightforward—it passes the prescriptive feature: it has the right number of this and that and will break or not break at this level, and so on—into the more judgmental or risk-based way and to apply the code in that flexible way? Have they exercised that sort of discretion in a way that can give us confidence? The problem with the risk-based approach is that until you get a mature group of regulators, it is possible for people to make poor judgments under such a code.
I have no further questions. We will support this code being incorporated, of course. While I deplore the delays, I will forgive the Minister because we have gone on about that enough.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s short debate, especially the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for his insight as a relative expert in this area. I will start by trying to help all noble Lords with the definition of a high-speed craft; they may or may not need calculators. A high-speed craft is one
“capable of a maximum speed in metres per second”
equal to or exceeding 3.7 times the one-sixth power of
“the volume of displacement corresponding to the design waterline”
in metres cubed,
“excluding craft the hull of which is supported completely clear above the water surface in non displacement mode by aerodynamic forces generated by ground effect”.
I hope that is helpful.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I did read that definition, so I am not surprised by it. I really want to know what are typical high-speed crafts and what are not. Am I right that the “Queen Mary 2” is not a high-speed craft but that some smaller craft that do 30 knots are designated as high-speed craft?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I will see whether I can get further written clarification of that. My understanding is that a craft knows that it is a high-speed craft, is certified to be such and then falls under these regulations. Clearly, there is a balance between the speed and the displacement. We might come up with a nice little picture of the displacement and the speed, saying whether it is high speed. That might be quite interesting for all noble Lords, as we are unlikely to talk about high-speed craft again any time soon. Let us see how we do.
The other thing I want to cover at the outset is the impact of the delays, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I think the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said it best; I believe he said that many of these changes are already adopted. During analysis, the UK’s high-speed craft were found to already comply with all the elements of these regulations, which transpose these international safety requirements for high-speed craft from chapter X into domestic law.
There are the two different codes, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, talked about being drunk at sea and a list of other things. Essentially, everything within those codes comes over to domestic law. I got a little confused at this point, so I will go back to Hansard and check that I have properly covered that issue, which I know was raised by both Front-Benchers.
On the delay in bringing them into domestic law, I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords that all the UK craft were already doing it. The main benefit of the regulations today is the fact that we will be able to enforce them against foreign and UK craft if they are not. The MCA will certainly do that. The delay for enclosed spaces, et cetera—I am sorry; I cannot read my writing—was seven years; that came into force in 2015. On life-saving appliances and the deregulation of satellite services, there was a two-year delay. But as I say, the requirements were already in place and we are not aware of any incidents relating to vessels that did not put these requirements into place.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, asked about high-speed offshore service craft. Indeed, he is absolutely right: there is a completely different set of regulations, which I was going to mention in my opening remarks. I then decided that it would confuse all noble Lords because we would be talking about entirely different vessels which do very important things. I completely appreciate that there is huge innovation going on in that area with electrics and the foils—you only have to look at the America’s Cup vessels to see that they fly. They do not sail anymore; they just fly. It is amazing. But, yes, we are not talking about those vessels, or indeed offshore service craft, today.
I will take the point about advance warning of future changes back to the department to make sure that we have good stakeholder engagement before future changes, either international or domestic, are foisted upon the industry. We want stakeholders to be prepared, and it is obviously really important that we get their feedback as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked whether we manufacture in the UK. Yes, we do—we manufacture hovercraft, and we also have a number of high-speed craft in development. I suspect that these might relate to some of the more innovative maritime things coming through, some of which are very exciting. Obviously, those craft will take account of these regulations, as would any vessel imported into this country before it can be certified.
Turning to the issue of a risk-based approach, I understand where the noble Lord is coming from. However, the high-speed craft codes of 1994 and 2000 have always taken a risk-based approach, so there is no change in mindset among the regulators here in putting a risk-based approach into place. Unless I have misunderstood the issue he raised, we believe that the MCA already operates in that way.
I have one last comment on our favourite topic: the maritime backlog. I recognise that this is one more brick in the wall, which is very good. This is one of the 13 outstanding statutory instruments, and I am sure noble Lords will join me again later this year as we debate some more. We are making progress. As I always say, I apologise, but we hope to get everything done by the end of 2023, which is what we committed to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Terrorism Act 2000 (Alterations to the Search Powers Code for England and Wales and Scotland) Order 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the Grand Committee do consider the Terrorism Act 2000 (Alterations to the Search Powers Code for England and Wales and Scotland) Order 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the order, which was laid before this House on 18 July, be approved.
Following the horrific terrorist attack at Fishmongers’ Hall in November 2019, the then Home Secretary commissioned the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, to review the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements, commonly referred to as MAPPA, used to supervise terrorist and terrorist-risk offenders on licence in the community.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, hereafter referred to as the 2022 Act, established three new powers for counterterrorism policing: a personal search power, a premises search power, and a power of urgent arrest. These powers were established in response to recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC following his review of MAPPA.
This order relates to the new power of personal search, the creation of which was also recommended by the Fishmongers’ Hall Inquests—Prevention of Future Deaths report. The personal search power has been inserted into the Terrorism Act 2000, in new Section 43C, by the 2022 Act. The new search power came into force on 28 June this year.
As was set out by the Government during the passage of the 2022 Act, the new personal search power applies across the UK, enabling the police to stop and search terrorist and terrorism-connected offenders released on licence who are required to submit to the search by their licence conditions, should the Parole Board determine such a condition is necessary. The officer conducting the stop and search must also be satisfied that it is necessary to exercise the power for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism.
Section 47AA of the Terrorism Act 2000 imposes a requirement on the Secretary of State to prepare a code of practice containing guidance about the exercise of search powers that are conferred by that Act. In June, Parliament approved regulations laid by the Government that amended Section 47AA so that it extends to cover the new personal search power inserted into the Terrorism Act 2000 by the 2022 Act. This created a requirement for the Secretary of State to prepare a revised code of practice that includes guidance on the exercise of the power conferred by new Section 43C.
We have duly prepared a draft revised code of practice, and this order seeks Parliament’s approval to bring the revisions we have made to the existing code of practice into force.
I will now set out the nature of the revisions the Government have made. The primary update to the code of practice is the incorporation of the new stop and search power provided for by Section 43C of the Terrorism Act 2000. The revised code sets out important parameters that govern the use of the Section 43C power and provides clarity for police officers on the power’s scope. This includes providing guidance on the thresholds to be met before the section 43C power can be used, scenarios in which it might be appropriate for use and the powers of seizure associated with the search power.
We have also set out clearly within the revised code the limitations on the clothing that a person can be required to remove when the Section 43C power is being exercised by the police. In keeping with existing stop and search powers, police officers exercising the Section 43C power may not compel a person to remove any clothing in public except for an outer coat, a jacket or gloves, and an intimate search may not be authorised or carried out under the new power.
The new Section 43C stop and search power has been specifically created to help manage the risk posed by terrorist offenders on licence who are assessed to be high or very high risk to the public. The Government plan to collect data from police forces on the use of this targeted power, as we routinely do for other stop and search powers, and make this data publicly available through future statistical publications.
Given that the existing version of the code was brought into force in 2012, the Government have also taken this opportunity to make other minor changes to the code to ensure that it accurately reflects current practice, legislation, terminology and organisational responsibilities. The updated code reflects the creation of police and crime commissioners and structural changes to other police authorities, including the creation of authorities overseeing combined police areas.
We have also ensured that organisational names have been updated, for example replacing previous references to the Association of Chief Police Officers’ counterterrorism co-ordination centre—it does not trip off the tongue—with up-to-date references to the Counter Terrorism Policing national operations centre.
The revised code also includes a new paragraph which references the Children Act 2004, and its Scottish equivalent, to highlight the need for the police to ensure that in the discharge of their functions they have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of all persons under the age of 18. Although this is not a new policy, the Government considered it important when revising the code for safeguarding duties such as this to be made explicit.
In addition, we have used this opportunity to make other minor but necessary amendments, such as updating links and contact details within the code, including refreshing the web address where the most up-to-date version of the Government’s counterterrorism strategy, known as Contest, can be found.
In the course of revising the code, the Home Office has consulted the Lord Advocate and other appropriate persons and organisations, including the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Counter Terrorism Policing and Police Scotland, all of which are supportive of the approach being taken.
The revised code promotes the fundamental principles to be observed by the police and helps preserve the effectiveness of, and public confidence in, the use of police powers to stop and search under the Terrorism Act 2000. I very much hope that noble Lords will support these alterations to the code of practice.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his elevation to Home Office Minister. If it were me, I would also be thinking, “Oh goodness, what have I done?”, but I am sure he will be excellent in his new role. I thank him for explaining this order. As when we considered the primary legislation that lies behind this order, clearly we are supportive of the changes in the legislation. We know from the tragedy at Fishmongers’ Hall how the risk posed by offenders on licence is an inexact science. These additional powers for the police to stop and search people on licence on the recommendation of the Parole Board are an important tool in trying to manage that risk and act as a deterrent to those on licence from carrying out the sort of appalling attacks that we saw at Fishmongers’ Hall.
As the Minister explained, the order is about the revised code of practice, which is quite a lengthy document. We are here to hold the Government to account for, in this case, the changes that have been made to the extensive code of practice. I understand the issues around the change in the legislation and Section 43C but, as the Explanatory Memorandum and the Minister have explained, a series of other amendments have been made to the code. The Explanatory Memorandum says that these “include”, and then gives a list of those changes, as the Minister explained. It would be extremely helpful to have a “track changes” copy of the code of practice so that we could see exactly what the changes are to the revised code of practice. Although the changes to incorporate the new Section 43C are fairly obvious, as I say, the others are difficult to find in among the code of practice. However, this is an important step forward in terms of giving these additional powers to the police for those who may pose a risk after they have been released from prison, and it is important for the police to have a code of practice to go with those changes. Having said that, we are supportive of the order.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on his promotion and wish him well in his task—not too well, perhaps, but pretty well. But seriously, I know that he will be diligent in the execution of his duties and will work with his usual co-operative manner.
We too support what is obviously a very sensible and necessary step forward by the Government. I have a couple of questions that I want to ask. The Fishmongers’ Hall attack clearly highlighted some problems, which the independent reviewer took up and made recommendations about. It is good that the Government have reacted and responded to that. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, we support what they are doing here.
The order is called the Terrorism Act 2000 (Alterations to the Search Powers Code for England and Wales and Scotland) Order 2022. It revises the code of practice with respect to those three, yet its extent is to the whole of the UK, which includes Northern Ireland. I do not quite understand how a code that relates to three parts of the UK extends to all four. You would expect the title to refer to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
We all appreciate the sensitivity in Northern Ireland, but can the Minister explain how a British order, which does not include Northern Ireland, extends to the whole of the UK, as in the notes? If there has been widespread consultation, does that include Northern Ireland and who has it been with, notwithstanding that the Northern Ireland Assembly has not been sitting? I just do not understand the process or how that works. I am sure there is a very simple reason laid out by somebody, but I cannot find it. I do not understand this, but it is laid out in the order.
The Explanatory Memorandum says that this new power can be used with a convicted terrorist who is released on licence, provided that a search power is included in the licence. Can the Minister explain for all our benefit in what circumstances a terrorist released from prison would not have a search power included in their licence? If that were the case, what power would a police officer or whoever else have with respect to a potential terrorist?
One would assume—the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would know better than me—that if a police officer thought a terrorist act was about to be committed, they would have a power to try to do something about that. If that is the case, why would you have a new power included in the Act? In other words, what is the purpose of including the search power in the Act and in what circumstances would you not have that anyway? That would be interesting to know.
Can the Minister say a little more about the thresholds? It seems to me that in most cases, and particularly in Section 43C, we are talking about powers to search without suspicion. What are the thresholds for that? Is that where the officer has a belief that a terrorist act is going to be committed, even though they have no grounds for that? How does that happen?
As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, quite rightly said, there are a number of changes. The Government talk about minor changes being made, but it is very difficult to understand what those changes are and to track them through. For example, the Minister said that there are examples in the code of what a police officer can or cannot do with respect to clothing or in a public place. Is this the same or has that changed as a result of the new power that this secondary legislation gives to police officers? Is there any change in relation to who can carry out the search—for example, a female officer searching a male terrorist, or the other way around?
The Minister talked about children and this applying to children under 18. Is there a lower age limit? What do we mean by children? I understand that children means those under 18, but is there a lower limit or does this apply to anybody, irrespective of age, who a police officer believes may be about to commit a terrorist act?
As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, the questions we have laid out are important because public confidence, particularly in the use of stop and search without suspicion, is of real importance. I would be keen to hear what steps the Government have taken to ensure that public confidence has been and will be sought in some of these situations. One can imagine the difficulty for the police operating in communities where this power might be used and the sensitivity of it.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank both noble Lords for their warm welcome; I hope that we continue to operate in total agreement.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am not sure about that either, but we will try.
On the specific points that both noble Lords raised, to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, we will be happy to provide a tracked change version as he requested, and I will make sure he gets that as soon as possible. That was the easy question.
Moving to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I shall try to deal with them in order. He asked about the extent of the code of practice and why it is confined to Great Britain. A separate code exists for stop and search powers under the Terrorism Act in Northern Ireland—a fact that the noble Lord alluded to. The Northern Ireland Office is responsible for that. We continue to work with colleagues there and offer them support in updating their equivalent code in Northern Ireland, which they have advised is likely to happen next year.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I just ask, because this is a very important point. The new power exists with respect to Northern Ireland, but the code of practice under which it operates is separate, legislated for under a different Act and in a different way. Is that correct—the power is a new power to be extended to Northern Ireland?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As I understand it, it could be extended to Northern Ireland, but the Northern Ireland Office is, of course, responsible for the application of such things in Northern Ireland. I may not be entirely correct on that, so I will come back to the noble Lord if I am not.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am sorry to labour this point, but it is so important. I may be wrong, but I understood the Minister to be saying that a different code of practice applies to Northern Ireland, hence this is called a code of practice for England, Scotland and Wales—in other words, Britain. For Northern Ireland, there is a separate code of practice. Given that the new power extends to the whole of the UK, one presumes that the police and others in Northern Ireland will have the ability to stop and search without reasonable suspicion a terrorist out on licence, where that is part of their licence. Is that the case or not?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
To clarify—I think this does—the new search power applies UK-wide, but there are two separate codes. Does that make sense?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That makes absolute sense. It is not what I understood the Minister to say in the first place, but I was just trying to clarify that. If I had realised that, I would have made different remarks, because it is a quite interesting extension of power with respect to Northern Ireland, for obvious reasons.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Understood. The noble Lord asked me how it is determined who qualifies under the new code. To go back to the point I made in my opening remarks, in most cases the Parole Board determines whether it is appropriate for the offender, when released, to have their licensing condition expressed as a part of the conditions of their release. Its assessment is based on a contemporary assessment of the offender’s risk profile, including whether they are judged to represent a high or very high risk to the public.
How is it determined which terrorist offenders should have licence conditions permitting the search imposed on them? As I say, it is imposed on offenders convicted of terrorism or a terrorism-connected offence and assessed as posing a high or very high risk of serious harm. In those cases, it may be imposed where there is a concern that the offender may carry a weapon or to provide an additional protection for staff—for example, where they are subject to polygraph testing, a search can be carried out prior to the examination for the safety of the examiner. I hope that clarifies that.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the sex of the searching officer. The answer to his specific question is no: a same-sex officer is not required unless the individual being searched requests one. The noble Lord also referenced the data that is collected. I can assure him that it will be extensive. He asked about age as well. I will come back to him on that; I do not have a specific answer. The notes I have deal only with the 18 year-old point.
In closing, I reiterate that this order provides for alterations that the Government have made to the code of practice for the exercise of search powers conferred by the Terrorism Act 2000 to be brought into force. I think I have covered the rest of the information requested, and as such I commend this order to the Committee.
Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2022
Relevant documents: 9th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that these regulations, which were laid before the House on 29 June 2022, be approved. This Government have taken decisive action to support people with their energy bills. From 1 October a typical household in the UK will pay no more than £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years. This is in addition to the £37 billion of support announced earlier this year, including the energy bills support scheme that provides a £400 discount for around 29 million households. The warm home discount complements these measures, focusing on those at risk of fuel poverty, primarily through the provision of a £150 direct energy bill rebate.
We have already passed legislation for the extension, expansion and reform of the warm home discount scheme in England and Wales, with better targeted and automated rebate provision. The Scottish Government have devolved powers under the Scotland Act 2016 to design and implement a warm home discount scheme in Scotland. The BEIS Secretary of State has certain reserved powers, including approving any scheme for Scotland. Earlier this year, Scottish Ministers requested that the UK Government make provisions for a continuation of the scheme in Scotland. In May, the UK Government consulted on this continuation and expansion of the scheme in Scotland, which was supported by a majority of respondents.
This SI extends the WHD scheme in Scotland to 2025-26, providing much-needed certainty on energy bill support to low-income and vulnerable households in Scotland. The Government committed to expanding the scheme in the energy White Paper 2020. The £475 million —at 2020 prices—spending envelope is set for Great Britain and will be approximately £506 million in 2022 prices. The warm home discount in Scotland will increase proportionately in line with the GB-wide increase to the scheme. The UK Government will apportion 9.4% of the total spending to Scotland; this means £49 million of the overall scheme value, an increase of around £13 million compared with last year.
Overall, around 280,000 Scottish households in or at risk of fuel poverty will receive a rebate this winter, which is 50,000 more households than last winter. The apportionment of spending to Scotland is based on the number of domestic gas and electricity meters across Great Britain and ensures that the costs of the scheme are spread evenly across all customers. As a result, the proportion of spending in Scotland will exceed Scotland’s share of the Great Britain population.
The scheme participation threshold for energy suppliers is lowered to 50,000 domestic customer accounts in 2022-23 and to 1,000 domestic customer accounts from 2023-24. This mirrors the scheme in England and Wales, and will mean that from 2023-24, suppliers obligated under the scheme will cover over 99% of domestic customers.
As requested by Scottish Ministers, the WHD scheme in Scotland will be a continuation of the scheme previously in place across Great Britain in 2021-22 and therefore will continue to include three main components: the core group, the broader group and Industry Initiatives. First, under the core group element of the scheme, around 90,000 low-income pensioners in receipt of pension credit guarantee will continue to receive their rebates automatically. Secondly, under the broader group element, around 190,000 low-income and vulnerable households, mainly of working age, will receive a rebate following an application to their energy supplier. The broader group is expanded to include housing benefit as one of the mandatory eligibility criteria, as per the England and Wales scheme. Income thresholds for the criteria relating to child tax credits and universal credit are increased.
Each energy supplier’s obligations under the scheme will be set according to their market share in Great Britain. This is the fairest way of spreading costs across all customers in Great Britain and will ensure consistency across the two warm home discount schemes.
The Government recognise that there are differences in the proportions of energy customers that suppliers have in the different nations. There will be different challenges for suppliers with a higher proportion of customers in Scotland and those with a lower proportion. We are making allowances for these differences by allowing suppliers with few broader group customers in Scotland to transfer up to 100% of their broader group target to Industry Initiatives, which of course will be subject to Ofgem’s approval. Ofgem’s approval will mainly be based on each supplier’s market share in Scotland relative to Great Britain. Only energy suppliers with a disproportionally low number of broader group customers are likely to be permitted this flexibility.
Scottish households in or at risk of fuel poverty will continue to benefit from support under Industry Initiatives funded under the warm home discount. This element of the scheme will continue to provide valuable support to households, such as energy advice, benefit entitlement checks, energy debt and emergency financial assistance, as well as energy efficiency measures. We increased the cap on spending on Industry Initiatives to £7 million per annum, which is broadly proportionate to the spending expected in England and Wales in 2025-26.
Although activities permitted under Industry Initiatives will be the same as in previous years, there will be some exceptions. Part of the permitted Industry Initiatives spending on debt write-off is ring-fenced for customers with pre-payment meters, as these customers are particularly at risk of self-disconnection. Again, this mirrors the scheme in England and Wales. As per the scheme in England and Wales, limits are imposed on boiler and central heating system installations supported under Industry Initiatives, which will help to support our decarbonisation objectives.
No caps have been imposed on the amount of Industry Initiatives spending that can be used for financial assistance. The list of eligibility criteria for financial assistance has been expanded to include the mandatory eligibility criteria for the broader group. This will include suppliers whose broader group is oversubscribed to direct customers to financial assistance under these Industry Initiatives.
In conclusion, the warm home discount remains a source of critical support for low-income households across Great Britain. These regulations extend the scheme in Scotland until 2026 and increase energy bill support from £140 to £150 for over 280,000 low-income and vulnerable households each winter, when they need it most. This is an additional 50,000 households receiving vital support compared with last year. Therefore, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his very full explanation. I start by expressing regret that this scheme is necessary in the first place. I think all of us recognise that while fuel poverty is really high profile at the moment, it is a scourge that has been with us for a long time, as reflected by the fact that the original scheme came in in 2011. Many people and families have struggled to pay their bills for a very long time. Of course, as outlined by the Minister, we recognise the support that has been given for the extreme circumstances we have found ourselves in recently.
I do not want to spend too much time going through the detail. I recognise that there has been extensive debate on the England and Wales scheme in the Commons and in this place, and that these regulations are bringing in the necessary additions to meet the requirement to have a separate scheme for Scotland, as has been outlined. We recognise that point, but I would like further clarification and reassurance that the Scottish Government are happy with the outcome of the debate and consultation as it has gone forward. That is very important; obviously, there are peculiar circumstances in terms of the responsibilities of the Scottish Government and the role that the UK Government have to play.
As we have heard, most respondents to the second consultation agreed with the proposed extension of the current scheme until 2026, but the other question that came up was whether it was possible to have an earlier review of the scheme given the circumstances people are facing at the moment. There is concern generally about the higher fuel poverty rates in Scotland that the evidence suggests. Obviously, concerns were raised about the method for apportioning spending to Scotland, and some asked for higher apportionment to reflect those higher rates. I think it is fair to say that some energy suppliers also expressed concern about the additional costs of running two separate schemes, in England and Wales and in Scotland, and I do not know whether there is any assessment of what that additional spend will be.
Of course, it was probably inevitable that there were many requests for the value of the rebates to be increased. I understand that the rebate is fixed at the level proposed for consistency with the England and Wales scheme, but I will leave that issue there as something that will probably come up in the Minister’s response. I wonder if there are any comments to be made on how we will assess the situation as we go forward into continuing uncertain times.
The way the scheme is structured means that the cost of the rebates will be passed on to consumers in Scotland. My understanding is that the suppliers will pass on the cost of the scheme to their customers. This is estimated to come out at about £19 per dual fuel account, which is an increase from £14 under the current scheme. The Minister is shaking his head; I take from his response that he has a comment to make on this. I look forward to hearing that this is not the case. The reason I raise it, of course, is because we are seeing across the whole of the UK more and more people starting to struggle to pay their energy bills—and an additional cost for some who might not be eligible for this rebate scheme is probably not sustainable and could end up forcing more people into needing to take part.
I shall leave my comments there. It is very important that we approve the regulations so that we can get them into place, so families can benefit as quickly as possible. I end my comments with the general view that I hope we are not losing sight of the wider imperative of moving forward with schemes that will actually reduce the need to use fuel. I am thinking of home insulation, for example. There is some uncertainty at the moment, and I would welcome reassurance that the work that has started will be continued and, indeed, increased.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness very much indeed for her questions. She deserves admiration for being the only Member to turn up to discuss this important issue, so I am grateful to her for that. I am happy to confirm that the Scottish Government are very satisfied with the scheme before us today; in fact, they asked us to implement it on their behalf. They originally talked about doing a separate scheme for ECO and the warm home discount for Scotland, then they decided that they could not and therefore requested us to launch the process and implement it for Scotland. That is why we are debating these regulations separately from the England and Wales regulations. So not only are they satisfied with it but it is at their request that we do this.
On the noble Baroness’s question about a review, it would be possible for the Scottish and UK Governments to carry out a review and consult on amendments to the scheme, should they consider it appropriate. We are apportioning a fair amount to Scotland; it is equivalent to 9.4% of the overall spending, which is proportionate to the number of domestic gas and electricity meters in Scotland compared to the rest of Great Britain. This is higher than Scotland’s proportion of the population in Great Britain, which was 8.4% in mid-2020, and it will also exceed its share of means-tested benefits recipients. This approach makes it fairer for consumers across England, Wales and Scotland, ensuring similar levels of cost and benefit across consumers.
On the administration costs of the schemes, the scheme in Scotland is a continuation of the current scheme, so there would be limited additional burdens in implementing it, and there would be continuity for suppliers. The reform of the scheme in England and Wales will reduce the administrative burden of running the scheme compared to the current one, and flexibility to transfer the broader group into industry initiatives will reduce the burdens for suppliers with low or zero broader groups in Scotland.
On the noble Baroness’s point about the cost of the scheme on energy bills—I think that she cited the figure of £19—the ECO scheme and warm home discount form part of the so-called green levies, which the noble Baroness will recall the Chancellor announcing, rather than being funded through bills. The scheme will be funded, at least for the next two years, by the Exchequer directly under the energy price guarantee scheme. So we are continuing with the scheme as previously, but the suppliers will be refunded by the Exchequer from that.
The noble Baroness also asked a very important question about our insulation schemes. As she will know, we have insulation and energy efficiency schemes of about £6.6 billion through a number of different initiatives. I am thinking of the home upgrade grant, the social housing decarbonisation fund, the public sector decarbonisation scheme, the local authority delivery scheme, and so on. I am happy to confirm that they are continuing, as well as the ECO scheme, which is also part of the obligations on suppliers. Indeed, I am happy also to confirm that we are extending it. As part of his recent Statement, the Chancellor announced an ECO plus scheme, which will be worth about £1 billion over three years. We are currently working on implementing it, and we will bring a regulation back to this House to discuss its further implementation in future.
I hope that has dealt with all the noble Baroness’s queries. Again, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Prepayment Meters: Pricing
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that individuals and families who pay for their energy through a prepayment meter are not paying the highest unit prices.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as director of Generation Rent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, prepayment customers will benefit from both the energy price guarantee and the Energy Bills Support Scheme. Under the energy price guarantee, a typical household in Great Britain will pay around £2,500 a year on their energy bills from 1 October 2022. There will continue to be a small difference under the energy price guarantee between the unit cost for a prepayment meters and other types of payment methods to reflect higher costs to serve those customers.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, using a prepayment meter is the most expensive way to pay for your energy, yet they are most likely to be used by the households least able to afford to heat their home. To cope, these families severely cut back on the energy they use, but their efforts are diminished because of the impact of the rise in standing charges, which remain the same regardless of the energy used. So I ask the Minister two things. Will the Government insist that there is a winter truce on energy suppliers forcing families already struggling to pay their bills to use prepayment meters to clear their debt? Will the Government make it clear to Ofgem that the continuing ratcheting up of standing charges to cover costs over and above what the standing charge should cover is unacceptable?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am afraid that the noble Baroness is incorrect: using a prepayment meter is not the most expensive way of paying for your gas and electricity. Actually, normal credit is the most expensive way. The cheapest way is direct debit; slightly more expensive is prepayment; but the most expensive way is credit. The problem with what the noble Baroness is saying is that if we were to equalise the charges, and there is actually a higher percentage of customers who are fuel poor who are paying by direct debit, they of course would have to bear increased costs to take account of any reductions for prepayment customers.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, will the Government ensure that all children and seriously ill adults in receipt of the new SR1 benefit and being cared for at home are moved to the lowest energy cost tariff, irrespective of the type of meter and system of payment in place? Will the Government ensure that they are provided with emergency supplies in the event of any power cuts in their area, particularly in the winter, as power to their equipment, such as home ventilation, oxygen concentration and so on, is absolutely essential to their care at home?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point. Obviously, we are doing everything we can to make sure that there are no blackouts, but if that very unlikely eventuality comes to pass, of course we will want to do all we can to make sure that the most vulnerable are protected.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that although the situation now with the differential is not as extreme as it used to be, we could easily go back to a situation in which those on prepayment meters will be paying the highest tariff. If the Government were minded to, they could easily remedy the situation; for example, simply by removing the ability of Ofgem to set differential rates for people with prepayment meters. If they did that, that would sort the problem. Does the Minister agree that this would do the job and would get rid of the injustice whereby the poorest are being asked to pay the most?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I refer the noble Baroness to the Answer I gave earlier: using a prepayment meter is not the most expensive way, and many customers choose to do it for their convenience. The licensing conditions for Ofgem reflect the cost of serving different groups of customers. Of course, we keep these matters under review, but if we equalised it, then those paying by direct debit—often those who are fuel poor as well; there is a higher percentage of customers on that level —would end up paying more. There are no easy answers to this.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not accept that it is all very well talking about those people paying on direct debit, but we are talking about people who, if they have a bank account, are probably overdrawn and are certainly not in a position to do so? I pay by direct debit, but I do not understand why my standing charges, which are a major part of the costs, are going up as well as the energy costs. At a time when the Government are giving huge support to consumers and therefore to the utilities themselves, which would otherwise be facing severe financial difficulty, do we not have a bit of leverage and can we not speak up for those people struggling to pay those bills?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are helping those struggling to pay bills; I refer the noble Lord to the massive programme of support that we have put in place. These charges are set by Ofgem. I am aware that the standing charge is a controversial subject, but that reflects the network costs and other costs that every customer has to bear in addition to the unit costs of gas and electricity.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, there are 4 million prepayment energy customers in this country whose bills are not smoothed out over the year, unlike those who pay by direct debit. Ofgem figures show that prepayment customers are likely to pay two-thirds of their annual energy costs during the winter. What immediate measures will the Government take to help relieve pressures on these hard-pressed energy customers?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The answer to the noble Lord’s question is the massive programme of support we have put in place, which amounts to about £60 billion of direct payment support. Had we not put these measures in place, the average unit cost would have been about £6,000 per year; now it is down to an average of £2,500 per year. I emphasise that that is not a maximum but an average of the unit costs of energy that are capped under the price guarantee.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that renewable energy is nine times cheaper than fossil fuel energy? If there were not an anti-science coalition in the Conservative Party—including previous Prime Minister Cameron, who said to cut the green “stuff”—bills would not be as high and we would not be in this mess now.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Happily, on this matter I can partly agree with the noble Baroness, which will shock her. Some renewables are considerably cheaper than gas- fired generation, although it varies—we are experiencing a price spike in gas at the moment. That is one of the reasons why we have in place the largest programme of offshore wind in Europe; we have the second-highest level in the world, and it is something we want to ramp up greatly, to 50 gigawatts by 2030, because at the moment it is the cheapest form of generation.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, to return to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I thank the Minister for saying that the Government will do all they can to provide a secure electricity supply, particularly to seriously ill disabled children who may be using ventilators and other equipment. My family has experience of this; when there was a cut on the south London estate where my three year-old granddaughter was—she had to have a ventilator and a heart monitor—it took over three hours before the generator arrived, even though she was on the list. The scale of the cuts, if they happen, will be of a different magnitude. It is an enormous undertaking, so I would be really grateful if the Minister could make sure that this facility is available to not just children but other people who use this life-saving equipment at home.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course I can give the noble Baroness that assurance; we will do all we can to protect the most vulnerable. We all recognise the difficult circumstances that such people would be in, but our top priority is to make sure that there are no interruptions to supply at all. That is one of the reasons why we are ramping up efforts to make sure that we have enough energy to serve the UK this winter.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, those renting from private registered landlords often have little choice about how they pay for their energy. I am thinking in particular of students in houses of multiple occupation, many of whom are faced with very large bills indeed. Are landlords in that situation obliged to pass on any government subsidies to those students?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We certainly encourage them to do so. We are looking at the upcoming legislation, which the House will consider shortly, to ensure that not just people in situations such as houses of multiple occupation but also those on heat networks, those in temporary accommodation, et cetera, get the reduction passed on to them.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that once again the regulators are failing the public? Is it not about time that the regulator in this case looked at standing charges again and did something about them?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I assume the noble Lord is referring to Ofgem. I can assure him that it looks very closely at the balance between standing charges and individual units, but the network has to bear certain standing costs, which are independent of individual units of gas and electricity. We talked earlier in this Question about the expansion of renewables. Of course, the expansion of renewables involves enormous changes to the structure and operation of the grid to make sure that that power can be transmitted around the country, and that has to be paid for.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that those living in rural areas pay the highest cost of fuel, which is not covered by the price cap. I am thinking of oil, solid fuels and LPG. What plans do the Government have to extend the price cap to these fuels to help those living in rural areas, particularly in the north of England and other parts of the country where it is particularly cold in the winter?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course, a number of people across the country live off the gas grid and use oil, LPG, et cetera. The noble Baroness is right that in most cases they benefit from the electricity cap, but they do not benefit from the gas cap. We are looking at how they can be assisted. We have a commitment that they will receive an equivalent level of support and we will ensure that that is the case.
Stockton to Darlington Railway Anniversary
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they plan to celebrate in 2025 the 200th anniversary of the opening of the Stockton to Darlington railway, the world’s first public railway to use steam locomotives.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my railway interests as declared in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, railways are a product of Britain’s rich history of engineering innovation and the 200-year anniversary is a nationally important moment to mark and to celebrate. The DfT will work with DCMS, other government departments and the whole industry to make this event very special for workers and passengers.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome that splendid Answer. What response will the Government give to the submission from Sir Peter Hendy, on behalf of industry, local and national museums, the supply chain, Heritage Railway and education, for government funds to ensure that there will be a memorable series of events in 2025, including the recreation of the opening day journey of Locomotion No. 1 and the creation of a walking and cycling route along the 26 miles of the original line as a permanent legacy?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for highlighting some of the tremendous things that we can achieve to celebrate this 200-year anniversary. I am also aware that Sir Peter Hendy is out there with his begging bowl and working his magic. I am sure he is doing exactly what we want him to do, which is bringing together all the interested parties to work with government. This is a huge opportunity to not only celebrate the heritage of our railway network but promote the wider, modern system across the country.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, if we are to celebrate the 200th anniversary properly, do we not need ticket offices up and down the country? Although only 12% of tickets may be sold there at the moment, nevertheless, is my noble friend not aware that a ticket office does far more than sell tickets? They give advice, not least to parents who are going on holiday or with children, and are of course very important to the tourism industry.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend has sort of answered the question for me. I completely agree that railway staff do far more than sell just tickets, which is why in some circumstances they need to be out and about helping people where they need the help, rather than sitting in a glass box. My noble friend is right that one in eight tickets are currently sold by a ticket office. We know that passenger needs have changed and most people nowadays use the digital system, but we recognise that, in some areas, people want the option to buy a ticket at a ticket office. No final decisions have been taken. We are listening, but we must recognise that passenger needs have changed.
Lord Wrigglesworth (LD)
My Lords, having been born in Stockton—a little after 1825—and like my noble friend Lord Rodgers having represented Stockton in the other place for quite a number of years, I have a keen interest, as he has, in the success of these celebrations. I am therefore delighted to hear what the Minister has to say about the support that is being given to all the organisations already involved in preparing for them. However, would not the best and most appropriate way to recognise the wonderful achievements of railways since 1825 be to support the proposals of Northern Powerhouse Rail to upgrade and massively improve connections between the east and the west of the country and thereby achieve the levelling up and economic growth that the Government seek to achieve?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord will have seen the recent comments from the Prime Minister about Northern Powerhouse Rail. The Department for Transport has taken those comments very seriously indeed and is now doing an enormous amount of work.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
As we celebrate our heritage railways and the tremendous achievements of British engineering across the world, does the Minister also acknowledge the importance of the heritage railway sector? There are more than 100 heritage railways in the country and 400 stations, attracting millions of visitors each year. Can I be assured that the Government recognise the importance of this sector to the local economies in which the railways operate and the special needs of the sector, not least in relation to the supply of coal? I should declare an interest as honorary president of the Telford Steam Railway.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding us of the coal issue. We will have it at the top of our minds because it is absolutely critical. Heritage railways are a key part of local tourism. They attract people not only locally but internationally. We absolutely recognise the importance of the heritage rail sector; alongside DCMS, DfT works closely to make sure that it is properly promoted.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the National Railway Museum in York was founded in the year we celebrated the 150th anniversary of the Stockton to Darlington railway. Since 2008, it has included the excellent Locomotion museum at Shildon, which formed a key part of County Durham’s bid to be the UK City of Culture for 2025. As the Government consider the recommendations from Sir Peter Hendy and others, will my noble friend ensure that this museum is supported to play its full role in the celebrations of the 200th anniversary of this great gift to the world from the north-east of England?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question. I pay tribute to his outstanding service as DCMS Minister—he therefore knows an awful lot about the topic of heritage rail. He is right that we are not going to have a full celebration without making sure that all of our railway museums are fully engaged in the process. I completely agree with him that we absolutely need to ensure that railway museums across the country, including the fantastic National Railway Museum in York, are involved in the celebrations.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am afraid that I agree with the Minister—it is a bad habit these days. That day in 1825 was an historic one. It gave the United Kingdom first-mover advantage in this extremely important industry. It is one of the most important dates in the whole development of the Industrial Revolution, from which we as a society still benefit. I am delighted that the Minister supports the celebration of it. Will she allow in her answer that that support may involve some financial support?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I will allow that it may involve some financial support.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I hope I can persuade the Minister to go further than that gentle reply. It appears that the Government funded the Unboxed festival—something visited by only around 250,000 people and designated a “festival of Brexit” by Jacob Rees-Mogg—to the tune of £126 million. I think that the festival we are talking about today will be a lot more popular and resonate a great deal more with the public. So can the Minister give us a clearer indication of the size of the Government’s intended financial support?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Unfortunately, I am unable to give a clearer indication of the size of any government financial support, principally because the plans are still in development. We know that Sir Peter Hendy is working some up, but of course there will be other plans coming through from DCMS and DfT. As those plans come together, of course the Government will consider financial support.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
The Minister has articulated very clearly how important the whole heritage scene is, particularly in the railway endeavour. Can I ask her—in her hat as Transport Minister—who is responsible for heritage and historic ships, which are crucially important for our coastal communities?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The interesting thing is that heritage railways actually fall under DCMS. The noble Lord asked me about heritage ships. I am afraid I do not know, so I will write.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Transport for the North. In working on transport infrastructure and investment, would my noble friend care to take us to 2025, when we will see the completion of the £100 million currently being invested in Darlington railway station. Would she like to pay tribute at this point to Ben Houchen, who managed to bring this project forward and is seeing a significant investment in Darlington railway station now?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I completely agree with my noble friend that this Government have been reopening abandoned routes, electrifying lines, investing in high-tech, refurbishing stations and building new tracks and trains, such as the Elizabeth line. That is what we intend to continue to do.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister like to celebrate 2025 by telling us that we will have Royal Assent for the Great British railway legislation that we are still waiting for? It started as the Williams plan. It then became the Williams/Shapps plan, and presumably now it is going to be the Williams/Trevelyan plan. Might it ever be the Williams/Vere plan if we wait long enough?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I do not know—perhaps in my dreams. The Secretary of State is clear that the Government’s commitment to modernising rail and transforming the industry remains. We will of course legislate when parliamentary time allows.
Youth Sport Trust Report
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bassam of Brighton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of report by the Youth Sport Trust PE and School Sport in England: the Annual Report 2022, published on 26 May, which showed declining participation rates for young people in sports; and what discussions they are having with Sport England and other sports bodies to address this issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Kamall) (Con)
Sport and physical activity are incredibly important to our physical and mental health. This Government are committed to ensuring that everyone, regardless of background and origin, has access to and benefits from quality sport and physical activity opportunities. There is no doubt that the pandemic has had an impact on participation rates for young people and we will outline the Government’s plans to address this in the coming months. We continue to work across government, Sport England and the Youth Sport Trust to tackle this important issue.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, words are fine and yesterday the Minister spoke in glowing terms of the legacy from both the Olympics in 2012 and the Birmingham Commonwealth Games. But the report paints a very different picture. What exactly does the noble Lord think has gone wrong? It is brilliant that elite sports produce role models but where is the effective follow-through in our schools to enable the simple pleasure of sport for all and the next generation of sporting legends?
Lord Kamall (Con)
In my early discussions with officials from the department and talking about it not only within DCMS but across government, we have been looking at a number of the blockages, as it were. One of the schemes we are looking at is making sure that schools can open up for longer—the schools opening scheme. We are also making sure that the DfE and schools are in partnership so that they feel comfortable opening up and are able to staff those facilities. We are looking at other partnerships within communities—with private clubs et cetera—to make sure that we make as much use as possible of assets that are already there as well as upgrading existing ones.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Have the Government noted that there are now more than 2,350 sports partnership schemes which bring together state and independent schools to their mutual benefit? Will the Government encourage a further expansion of these partnership arrangements, which are so valuable, to enable as many pupils as possible to achieve their sporting potential?
Lord Kamall (Con)
My noble friend raises a very important point about the partnerships. We want to learn from what has worked in the previous partnerships and make sure that we continue to expand them, not only with this scheme but looking at how we address those who have trouble getting kit, for example. We are working with charities such as Sport for Change to make sure that we do it across government. We are also working with the voluntary sector as much as possible and using existing infrastructure.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it is well known that people drop out of sport at the various stages of education—at 16, 18 and 21—and that people who take their sport predominantly through small clubs, because they have better linkage to them, remain active. What are the Government doing to actively support the small club sector for the amateur sports that we are talking about, particularly considering how hard they have been hit by the pandemic?
Lord Kamall (Con)
During the pandemic a lot of local community sports clubs relied heavily on volunteering. We are looking at some of the challenges that they face, for example, with increased energy bills, and how we can support them. We are also looking at how we can encourage the incubation of far more projects and make far better use of existing facilities. It must not be just about elite sport, and not just about sport but about physical activity. Sometimes, children who are not so good at sport may feel a barrier to taking part, so we must find some physical activity such as cycling or walking.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the Covid pandemic, it is estimated that over 200 swimming pools were closed, never to reopen? Given the impact on young people’s ability to swim, can he assure me that in the latest round of cuts that the Treasury is insisting that Whitehall embark upon to enable the ludicrous mini-Budget to develop he will protect children’s sports facilities?
Lord Kamall (Con)
My department is having a number of conversations, particularly on the issue that the noble Lord raises, but also on understanding the challenges of rising energy prices and those that the sector faces. In September, the Government announced an energy bill relief scheme offering support, and during the pandemic the Government prioritised physical activity, providing £1 billion of financial support to sport and leisure. We will continue to review that to make sure that we are targeting that support as effectively as possible.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, for girls, sports inequality starts in schools, because they are not given access to sports that they enjoy, such as football. The situation is likely to be worse in deprived areas. The Lionesses have inspired girls across all communities. What more can be done to ensure that all girls, regardless of their background, have equal access to football and other sports that they want to play? Girls also want to enjoy the beautiful game.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I think that we are all very proud of the record-breaking success of England’s Lionesses this summer. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State were delighted to meet some of the Lionesses yesterday, who are extraordinary ambassadors for sport. However, we must not mandate which sport is played in schools or pick one over the other. We have to make sure that there is a wide variety of sports and physical activity. Some children are put off sport at an early age because they do not feel that they are good enough and there is elite sport even within school, so we have to make sure that we increase walking, cycling and other types of physical activity.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, primary schools have very few sports activities and the younger you start in sports, the better, particularly for integration. A lot of children find it difficult when they first go to primary school to integrate with their peers. Yet sport often brings them together and teaches them how to integrate and make friends. Will the Minister work with the Department for Education to make sure that something is done about sports in primary schools, because as far as I can see very little sport is played?
Lord Kamall (Con)
My department is working with the Department for Education to make sure that there is school sport and activity. On the wider point, it is important to recognise that, sometimes, sport is not just about activity and getting fit but about bringing communities together where there are divisions. There are a number of projects involving people who have been excluded from school where sport is brought into the classroom to encourage them to get better results at school. A few years ago, I went to see a project where sport was used to stop young kids being radicalised. Sport is a powerful force for bringing people together and addressing some of the problems we see in our society.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am delighted to echo some of the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, regarding girls’ sport. What are the Government doing about the fact that one in three children leave school without learning to swim, and what will the Minister do to ensure that all sports bodies reflect this country’s diversity?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point. We have to make sure that sports bodies represent the whole range of our communities and are not focused on elite sports or one particular community. I was contacted last week by a project that wanted to help more Afro-Caribbean people to swim— I think it is called Black People Can Swim. It is a fantastic project. I have asked my department to look at how we can have discussions with them to help make sure that we encourage more people from different communities to get involved in physical activity and sport.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the authors of the report, the Youth Sport Trust, and its chief executive, Alison Oliver. They certainly know what they are talking about. Since there is to be a new regime at the National Lottery, would this be a proper moment to suggest that the focus of grants should be on young people in general and youth sport and activities—as the Minister rightly said—in particular?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Government are refreshing the sport strategy at the moment. Noble Lords who took part in debates on the Health and Care Bill will remember that we talked about the cross-government approach to sport and physical activity. We are looking at a number of initiatives for improving it. We welcome reports such as this, as they highlight the areas that we need to focus our efforts on as we work out what has worked in the past and what we need to improve. We hope to fill those gaps where they exist.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
The Minister referred earlier to part of the Government’s strategy being to engage schools to try to get them to open for longer. This is a noble aspiration. However, he will be aware that school budgets were under pressure long before the energy crisis hit. They are now under much greater pressure from that and from other initiatives that the Government are requiring them to undertake. Can he give us an assurance that, if this thinking is taken forward, it is not simply added to the other burdens on schools without any additional resource to support it?
Lord Kamall (Con)
We are working across government on this. With DfE, we are looking at opening up existing sports and leisure facilities, including schools. We have to work with schools to work out what works for them and how we share the cost, to make sure they do not have an unfair burden on them. We are now working on the third phase of the opening school facilities programme to meet those needs. This phase will look at consistency in the school system and how to connect schools to national and local sporting activities and providers, as well as making sure that children get access to extra-curricular activities, whether at school or local sports clubs.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The Minister referred to the importance of making use of existing systems and spaces. He may be aware that 80% of public space in London is made up of streets, a figure that is reflected in many other cities around the country. He may be aware of the play streets scheme, whereby neighbours get together and close streets to allow children to play out in them—and adults to get together and mix. There is also the school streets scheme. As part of Learn with the Lords, I recently visited Challney boys’ school in Luton. It is desperate to get a school street outside it so that pupils can walk and cycle to school more often. Should we not ensure that those streets are far more often spaces where children can take physical exercise and play informal sports?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point about the use of streets. A number of countries do this across the world. I remember going to Guyana as a young boy in 1976 and playing cricket in the street. That was the culture of sport in those days. There are also a number of existing playing fields and facilities that we want to take advantage of, but I would be far more interested in play streets. If the noble Baroness could write to me or meet me to give me more details, I would be very interested in learning more.
Russia: Tactical Nuclear Weapon Deployment
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the risks and consequences of the deployment by Russia of a tactical nuclear weapon, and of possible responses by the West.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper—but I wish it were not necessary to ask it.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
Likewise.
My Lords, President Putin’s comments are deeply irresponsible. No other country in the world is talking about nuclear use. President Putin should be clear that, for the UK and our allies, any use at all of nuclear weapons would break a taboo on nuclear use that goes back to 1945 and has held since then. It would lead to severe consequences for Russia. President Putin has launched an illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. His forces continue to commit senseless atrocities. The people of Ukraine are seeking only to restore their sovereignty and territorial integrity, and we will continue to support Ukraine’s right to defend herself.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. The House knows very well how terribly dangerous the situation now is, as reflected in the recent comments of the President of the United States. Would the Minister agree that the urgent priority for the UK Government, working with other nuclear powers, including China and India, should be to exert the maximum pressure on Russia not to use a tactical nuclear weapon? Would he further agree that it is in the interests of no nuclear power for nuclear weapons to be used and that, were that event horizon ever to be crossed, the world would face terrifying instability? Should we not be concentrating our efforts on trying to de-escalate the war in Ukraine?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, these discussions are happening all over the world; it is in no one’s interests whatever that President Putin comes even close to realising the mindless threats that he has been making. But it is incumbent on us, our NATO allies and powers beyond NATO to reiterate the risk that Russia itself and President Putin would face were he to go down that route. I think we can all agree that the language that has been used by NATO and by our friends in America has made that very clear.
Lord Robathan (Con)
Does my noble friend think that the situation in Ukraine and Russia underlines the need for, and the value of having, an independent continuously at sea nuclear deterrent?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
That is very much the view of the British Government. As the noble Lord knows, we have maintained and will continue to maintain our deterrent for all eventualities.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, NATO was created to contain the threat of the former Soviet Union—an entity that no longer exists. It is individual countries, not NATO, that have been aiding and helping the brave people of Ukraine. Would the Minister agree that if we were to say that we will disband NATO it might just give Putin the escape route he so desperately requires? If that does not work, it will at least show the Russian people what sort of person Putin is.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, it is precisely the existence of NATO that gives us some hope that we can check President Putin’s power. NATO has been very clear, as we as an active member of it have been, that we will continue to respond to Russia’s threat and hostile actions in a united and responsible way, including by significantly strengthening deterrence and defence for all allies. NATO absolutely does not seek confrontation with Russia, but it is nevertheless speaking with one very clear voice.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, when I stood to intervene a moment ago, I had planned to point out that the head of GCHQ had pointed out that any talk of using nuclear weapons was highly dangerous. I would now add to that that any talk of disbanding NATO is also highly dangerous and misguided.
I had planned to ask the Minister what lessons the Prime Minister had taken away from the meeting of the new European Political Community in Prague last week. She spoke very highly of the fact that there was collective resolve to stand up to Russian aggression. I wonder how that will be demonstrated.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, in the grimness of the situation in Ukraine and the aggression that has been brought on by Vladimir Putin, one silver lining that has perhaps resulted is that Europe really has come together and really does speak with one voice on this issue. That is reflected in so many other discussions we are having across the board with our friends and allies across the European Union.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in the light of the appalling bombardment of Kyiv yesterday, what plans do the Government have to increase military support for Ukraine? Will the Government agree with and endorse the warning issued by General Petraeus last week, who said that any use of nuclear weapons by the Russians would result in the US taking out every Russian force they could see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and in Crimea, and every ship in the Black Sea?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the UK has been a proud contributor to Ukraine’s heroic efforts. We have given £2.3 billion so far in military support to Ukraine, and we are committed to meeting or exceeding that amount next year. We have provided support in other forms as well, amounting to around £1.6 billion and, as the Prime Minister reiterated today, our support is absolutely unwavering. However, I think it is also clear that were Vladimir Putin to engage in the kind of abomination we are talking about today, the repercussions for him would be very serious indeed.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interest as a vice-chair of the Nuclear Threat Initiative and the chair of the European Leadership Network. In September, Jake Sullivan told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that the US was communicating
“directly, privately and at very high levels to the Kremlin that any use of nuclear weapons will be met with catastrophic consequences for Russia”.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, reminded us, this morning on the “Today” programme, Sir Jeremy Fleming, the director of GCHQ, cautioned that any talk of nuclear weapons was very dangerous and that we need to be very careful about how we talk about that. So is it not best that we take Sir Jeremy’s implied advice and do not keep talking up the potential use of nuclear weapons in this context?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, there is no one in the House and, indeed, the country who would welcome the threats that we have heard from Russia being realised, but it is important that we reiterate, as NATO and the UK have, that any employment of nuclear weapons would fundamentally alter the very nature of this already grim conflict. It is important that the world is clear that were the fundamental security of any NATO member to be threatened, NATO has the capabilities and the resolve to impose costs on an adversary, whoever that is, that would far outweigh the benefits that any adversary could hope to achieve. I do not believe that that is talking up the prospect of nuclear conflict, which is the very last thing that any of us wants, but it is important nevertheless that the consequences are understood across the board.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, what is the Government’s assessment of the impact of the present threat and the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons on the wider non-proliferation regime? What measures are they taking to strengthen the long-term resilience of that regime, together with the Article 6 commitments of the NPT?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I am not aware of an assessment that has been made by government, so I do not want to provide an answer which would, I am afraid, be off the hoof from my point of view, but I will look into this and ask the appropriate Minister and department whether such an assessment exists and, if it does, I will make sure it is made public.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, expanding on a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, one of the most effective ways of minimising the risk of the use of nuclear weapons in this conflict would be for the Chinese leadership to send an unequivocal message, albeit privately, to the Russians that such use would be unacceptable to them. What diplomatic measures are in hand to pursue such an outcome?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble and gallant Lord makes an extremely important point. While I cannot go into the details of diplomatic engagement with China on this issue or many others, the point he has made has been absolutely heard and understood and is entirely valid.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, Putin’s reckless talk should be condemned by all and the situation is serious, but our focus should remain on what is happening in Ukraine. Irrespective of the distortions and lies coming from the Kremlin, now is not the time to weaken or dilute our firm support for the people of Ukraine. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government will take further steps to strengthen Ukraine’s capacity for air defence?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, we are not in any respect taking our foot off support for Ukraine. I mentioned earlier the financial and military support we have provided and hinted at the non-military support which amounts to around £1.6 billion so far. In addition to that, we are part of a process of introducing what I think is the largest and most severe economic sanctions package that Russia has ever faced. More than 1,200 individuals have been sanctioned by the UK, as well as 120 entities, including all their subsidiaries. Some 80% of the Russian banking sector is now subject to sanctions and more than 60% of the central bank’s foreign reserves are frozen. We know that one of the many consequences of that package is that companies in Russia are now struggling to produce the weapons that they have been asked to produce by the Russian state.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill
Tuesday 11th October 2022
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 View all Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 20 July 2022 - (20 Jul 2022)
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Relevant documents: 7th and 12th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I first thank all noble Lords with whom—together with my noble friend Lord Caine and my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart—I have been engaging on this Bill. While there may be different perspectives and views, I am as ever grateful for the courtesy extended to myself and my colleagues and for the engagement that we have had through our conversations.
This Government remain very much committed to upholding the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which has, as we all acknowledge, for almost 25 years brought peace and political stability in Northern Ireland. Irrespective of the speeches that will follow, I believe that all noble Lords without exception share strongly in this key principle. The Northern Ireland protocol was also agreed with the objective of protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions and, indeed, in avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland. That was key. Furthermore, it was also agreed by both sides that it would not undermine the wish of the United Kingdom and the interests of all parties in Northern Ireland.
In practice, however, the Northern Ireland protocol is undermining the delicate balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and, as we all know, the functioning of the power-sharing institutions in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the Executive are not functioning at all. The protocol has diverted east-west trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and it is creating fractures within the UK internal market. Again, I am sure all noble Lords would agree that this cannot be right and cannot continue. It is also impacting negatively on the everyday lives of people in Northern Ireland. It has weakened their economic rights and contributed to the sense of a democratic deficit in Northern Ireland—a point to which I will return shortly.
This Bill gives the Government powers to address these urgent political challenges by seeking to fix the practical problems created by the protocol. It allows the Government to restore the balance of the original objectives of the protocol, thereby avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland and—as I know to be important to all—protecting the integrity of the United Kingdom internal market while also protecting the EU single market.
The Government remain clear—a point that, again, I have shared with colleagues through engagement—that our preference would be to reach a negotiated solution to the protocol with our partners in the European Union. We have always said that we remained open to constructive dialogue and discussions with the European Union on the Northern Ireland protocol. I assure all noble Lords that this remains the case today.
Within the past fortnight, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and EU vice-president Maroš Šefčovič have spoken to reiterate their shared commitment to exploring potential solutions on this very issue. I am pleased to take this opportunity to report to the House in response to a question that I received from noble Lords in advance of Second Reading, including from my noble friend Lady Altmann: I can confirm that officials from the UK and the European Union are now conducting further technical discussions on the protocol.
As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary agreed with Vice-President Šefčovič when they spoke recently, both sides—the UK and the EU—want to look for solutions to protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is another sentiment that I know has been echoed in contacts with the Irish Government, including between my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and the Irish Foreign Minister, Simon Coveney, most recently last week and over the weekend.
However, the situation on the ground in Northern Ireland remains urgent, and the Government cannot allow that to continue. We must ensure that the Government retain the ability to act in all scenarios that prevail. It is a fact, as we all know, that Northern Ireland has been without a fully functioning power-sharing Executive since February this year. The political settlement in Northern Ireland is based on respect between all communities and the consent of those communities. I know we all recognise the huge insight of a number of noble Lords and colleagues who were there when that agreement was set up and initiated. However, the protocol in its current form is undermining that delicate balance, as I said earlier, and is contributing to ongoing political instability.
The Government remain committed to the restoration of the power-sharing devolved institutions, including the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Executive and the North/South Ministerial Council. We remain equally committed to preserving Northern Ireland’s place within the UK and removing barriers to east-west trade. This is particularly critical during the challenging economic period that has been fuelled by President Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I assure all noble Lords that the Government will continue to engage, as the Bill proceeds through your Lordships’ House, with the remaining parliamentary stages of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, while, I also assure noble Lords, continuing to conduct technical talks and explore shared solutions with our EU friends and counterparts.
I turn to some of the substantive provisions within the Bill. The Bill allows the Government to fix specific problems with the protocol by granting powers to make changes in four main areas: first, to provide and improve the customs and sanitary and phytosanitary regime; secondly, to create a new dual regulatory model; thirdly, to ensure that Northern Ireland can benefit from UK policies on subsidy control and VAT; and, fourthly, to legislate for new governance arrangements that address the democratic deficit created by the protocol in its current form.
On customs and SPS, the Bill allows the Government to introduce a green-lane and red-lane system to remove barriers to internal UK trade. There will be no unnecessary paperwork, checks or bureaucracy on goods staying in Northern Ireland as they will move via the green lane. Businesses will be able to use this green lane as part of a trusted-trader scheme. Goods destined for Ireland or the rest of the EU will go through full EU checks, controls and customs procedures via the red lane.
The UK is committed—a point that again several noble Lords raised with me during discussions—to a comprehensive approach to data sharing with the EU under our new model, a key ask that the EU has made of the UK. We would continue to share comprehensive data on the operation of the trusted trader scheme and on goods movements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This would of course enable the UK and the EU to jointly monitor the risk of abuse and allow for risk-led intelligence sharing and co-operation. Data-sharing arrangements would be delivered through a purpose-built IT system, with information available to the EU in real time. This would include standard commercial data for green-lane movements and more than 110 fields of data collected through customs declarations for red-lane movements. Any trader found abusing the green lane would incur penalties and face ejection from the trusted trader scheme. We fully understand and respect the legitimate concerns of our EU counterparts and friends that the single market should be protected. These provisions in the Bill will achieve that.
The Bill will also establish a dual regulatory regime so that businesses can choose between meeting UK or EU standards, or both, should they wish to do so. This will remove the barriers to goods made to UK standards being sold in Northern Ireland and cut the processes that drive up costs for business, particularly at this time. It will help address divergence between the two parts of the UK internal market. Anyone who trades into the EU single market will still have to do so according to EU standards. This will also protect the EU single market and we are committed to ensuring that firms in Northern Ireland that benefit from access to the EU single market retain that access.
The Bill will also ensure that the Government can set UK-wide policies on subsidy control, VAT and excise, so that people in Northern Ireland can benefit from the same policies as the rest of the United Kingdom. For example, at present, people in Northern Ireland are not able to benefit from VAT reliefs on energy-saving materials for homes. These reliefs help fight the cost of living and climate crises and pose no risk to the EU single market but cannot be implemented in Northern Ireland because of the protocol. At a time when a warm home and clean and secure energy are more important than ever, is it right that a typical family in Northern Ireland needs to find nearly £300 more to install solar panels? Surely that cannot be right.
Tax and spend are essential sovereign functions, especially in Northern Ireland where the UK Government play a significant role in the local economy. We will also maintain the VAT arrangements in the protocol, which support trade on the island of Ireland while ensuring Northern Ireland can still benefit from the freedoms and flexibilities available in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I turn now to the governance provisions in the Bill. Rules applying under the protocol are currently made without any say for Northern Ireland representatives and with no means to adapt them for the Northern Ireland context. In some cases, this has uniquely disadvantaged Northern Ireland, yet the rules have not been subject to any dialogue beforehand. This has been cited as symptomatic of the significant democratic deficit that I referred to. The proposals in the Bill will give businesses and consumers new flexibilities and freedoms to ensure that they are not bound to follow rules over which they have no say. Furthermore, prominent members of the unionist community in Northern Ireland have also expressed serious reservations about the role of the European court in overseeing the operation of the protocol. Unlike ordinary international treaties, disputes under the protocol can be taken to, and settled by, the Court of Justice, the court of one of the parties. The Bill will remove the domestic effect of the role of the European court where it is not appropriate. Disputes between the European Union and the United Kingdom would be settled by independent arbitration, in line with normal international dispute resolution provisions, including those in the trade and co-operation agreement.
However, the Bill would also enable the Government to implement a mechanism that allowed courts to seek an opinion from the European court on legitimate questions of interpretation of EU law, ensuring that it can still be applied where necessary, such as for the purposes of north-south trade. To be absolutely clear, the Bill seeks to change only those parts of the protocol that are causing problems and undermining the three strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement; it keeps the rest. We have, for example, explicitly protected the articles of the protocol that cover north-south co-operation, the common travel area and the rights of individuals, and we will maintain the functioning of the single electricity market, which benefits both Ireland and Northern Ireland.
The Northern Ireland protocol in its current from has created real problems and challenges for ordinary citizens and businesses in Northern Ireland and contributed to political instability in the region.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
If the Government wish to take action to remedy the situation the Minister has identified, why do they not take that action by invoking Article 16 of the protocol, which provides a perfectly legal route for such action to be taken?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I know that my noble friend has raised this point. As I have indicated, there are parts of the protocol that we believe are working. I have already alluded to the common travel area, for example. While Article 16 remains a provision that the Government obviously know is at their disposal, and can enact it if so required, we believe that the Bill seeks to present a solution to the exact issues that we are identifying and need to be addressed, but not by removing the protocol altogether. I have cited two or three reasons that are currently operational and work within the existing protocol.
To continue, we also believe that the current protocol creates new, cumbersome processes and bureaucracy for traders. It undermines Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom internal market and, as I said, has contributed to the diversion of east-west trade. Most urgently, it has provided an obstacle to the restoration of the devolved Government in Northern Ireland, undermining the important power-sharing institutions established by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The Government are continuing, again, as I said earlier, to engage in constructive dialogue with our EU partners to find shared solutions to these problems. I have referred to the discussions under way on current technical decisions between the UK and EU officials, which are a positive forward step.
Let me say again, as I said at the start of my remarks, that our strong preference remains to have a negotiated solution. However, we cannot stand by and allow the current situation to continue. We must ensure that the United Kingdom Government have the powers they need to address these urgent problems and enact lasting solutions to the problems inherent in the protocol, given any scenario. The Bill ensures that we have covered all the bases to implement what we believe are durable solutions while, to reiterate the point on the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Howard, preserving those parts of the protocol which are currently working.
I am confident that once the Bill has received Royal Assent, we will be well on our way to restoring the balance between the communities in Northern Ireland, which is integral to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I assure your Lordships that we continue to engage directly on the ground with businesses and communities in Northern Ireland; importantly, we continue discussions with our EU partners. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that we have all the tools available to the Government to deal with the scenarios that we currently face, but we remain committed to finding a lasting solution.
Lord Cormack
At end insert “but that this House regrets the early introduction of this Bill, and calls on His Majesty’s Government to delay further consideration of the Bill for six months, so as to allow time to reach a negotiated settlement with the European Union”.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I have never moved an amendment expressing regret before and I thought long and carefully before putting this one down on the Order Paper. I hope I speak for the whole House in saying how good it is to see my noble friend Lord Ahmad still on the Front Bench. He has come a long way since he was my Whip and we had a very amicable conversation yesterday, for which I am extremely grateful. I am glad that during his speech he referred on a number of occasions to the Government’s preference for a negotiated settlement. I believe that is important and, in saying so, that it will be far more helpful for the continuance of the Belfast agreement if we come to a united position with our European friends and former partners.
I believe that many things are at stake here, primarily this Government’s reputation as an upholder of international law. When we consider the serious and precarious position of the world today, underlined by those dreadful photographs in this morning’s paper, we have to realise that it is very important that we work with our international friends and neighbours and that, in our relations with them, we carry forward that spirit of unity in our nation that was so manifest only a couple of weeks ago. It is not helpful, while we continue those negotiations, to have on the statute book a Bill that is, in effect, an implied threat. I believe that there is a case for a pause.
I am not advocating, and have not advocated, that this House should go against its long custom and deny the Bill a Second Reading: we have our limitations, and we must not exceed them. But we also have a specific responsibility to uphold the constitution of our country and to maintain the rule of law nationally and internationally. We also have to remember—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My noble friend says his amendment would allow a Second Reading but in effect it wrecks the passage of the Bill by delaying it for six months. The Bill was approved by the House of Commons without amendment; does my noble friend think that this is the proper thing for this House to do?
Lord Cormack (Con)
Yes, it is entirely proper and consistent with this House’s role to pause, which is all that we are doing, and my noble friend knows that. We had a long conversation the other day, and my noble friend tried to persuade me that he was right, but I am afraid that, much as I genuinely admire and respect him as a great parliamentarian, I do not agree with him on this occasion, and he knows that.
It is crucial to remember that we have a constitutional role. We are not transgressing that role by calling for a pause, as my regret amendment and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, do. We have discussed these things and decided on the best outcome today. Because the Official Opposition are not prepared to have a vote today on either their own amendment or mine, there will not be one, so far as I am concerned. But that does not mean that the arguments have disappeared or that, in the two weeks between now and Committee, we will not continually be thinking about how best to achieve a pause in the passage of the Bill while we have proper negotiations.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My noble friend rightly paid tribute to the Minister and the fact that the negotiations are going forward. I think he shares the view that, if we can reach an agreement outside the protocol, that is the best way to go. But I am very surprised about the timing of his regret amendment, because it seems to me at this stage that every effort has been made to reach an agreement. Stopping the Bill at Second Reading might introduce all sorts of new elements into the negotiations. I suggest ensuring that the negotiations can continue. If my noble friend then feels that the outcome of the negotiation is constitutionally unacceptable, surely that is the moment at which he should raise this matter, rather than Second Reading. There are many weeks ahead of us for Committee, Report and Third Reading, which would be open for him to move his amendment. I understand my noble friend’s constitutional point, but I completely fail to understand his timing.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My noble friend is entirely entitled to his opinion, but I remind him that, until very recently—by which I mean the last two weeks—no substantive negotiations took place between March and now. My noble friend, in his great distinction, is fully entitled to have whatever view he wants, but I do not believe that to hold a sword of Damocles, as it were, in the form of this Bill over negotiations is a good idea. We would be far better negotiating with our friends and neighbours by treating them as friends and neighbours whom we totally trust. Should things go badly wrong, we will have to return to the Bill.
I remind noble Lords in all parts of the House that, in Northern Ireland, there is certainly a majority opinion—I am not talking about the DUP—reflected in the composition of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which has been elected but sadly does not meet, that the protocol should be amended but should not be ditched, and that this Bill should not pass. I have many correspondents from Northern Ireland who tell me that this is very much the general view, and certainly the general view in the business community of Northern Ireland. They want a degree of certainty and to have these matters resolved as soon as possible, but they want them resolved in a way that preserves the essence of the protocol. That is the opinion of that part of the United Kingdom. I find it very sad that the world is in such a precarious state—I refer again to those terrible photographs in today’s newspapers about what happened in Ukraine yesterday. During this time, we need to try to have the sort of unity that our Prime Minister is, I believe, arguing for today in the G7—and that should apply throughout. Therefore, there is a very strong case for pausing these negotiations.
As I have said, I have had conversions with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman; she is not going to move her amendment to a vote tonight and I am not going to push mine to a vote tonight—I make that absolutely plain here and now. However, this is not going to solve the position. Before we come to Committee, we must see whether it would not be advisable to pause the Committee while negotiations continue—the Bill will have had its Second Reading, so that is not in jeopardy. I accept the ultimate supremacy of the House of Commons—as I have argued many times in your Lordships’ House on a whole range of issues—but we have a role to play, and we should seek to play it.
I ask noble Lords to reflect for a moment: most of us in this House are anxious to preserve the United Kingdom as a union. We are anxious to have the closest possible relationships with other western democracies in Europe and across the Atlantic. Do not let us forget that one of the people who is most troubled by the Bill and its implications is the President of the United States, who has made his views very plain to the Prime Minister and others.
There will be no vote tonight, but I beg noble Lords to think carefully about some of these issues and to reflect on the importance of having a stable relationship and a series of agreements, which have not come about and will not come about by our seeking to ride roughshod over the principles of international law. I rest my case and beg to move.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, nearly three years ago, Ministers and the then Prime Minister returned from Brussels triumphantly, holding the withdrawal agreement and a brand-new protocol on Northern Ireland. We were told that this was a great deal for the country, and especially for Northern Ireland. It was, we were told, the best of both worlds. Most importantly, we were told that the letter and spirit of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement had been preserved. Now, Ministers tell us that none of this really happened. They insist that the protocol—that they negotiated, signed and campaigned on—does precisely the opposite of what they claimed then, and that it is the source of the problems that they vowed it would solve. Their answer now is to take a wrecking ball to their own agreement and to ask noble Lords to support a Bill that is a flagrant breach of international law. Frankly, your Lordships’ House should not have been asked to consider this Bill.
The truth is that the Bill is an abject admission of failure: first, a failure to understand the deal that they themselves negotiated; and, secondly, a failure to right the wrongs of their previous decisions. As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede will outline later, the Bill is an insult to our political, legal and diplomatic traditions. Its aims and the powers it grants to Ministers of the Crown amount to nothing short of constitutional vandalism. It damages Britain’s hard-won reputation as a country that plays by the rules. It divides us from our European allies when we should be walking in lockstep in the face of Putin’s war in Ukraine. Further, it risks creating new trade barriers and more uncertainty for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland, and the rest of the UK, in the middle of a cost of living crisis.
There are many reasons to object to the Bill but I will focus on just three. First, the Bill will not solve the problems it purports to fix. Secondly, it is incompatible with our obligations under international law. Thirdly, it affords Ministers unreasonable, unwarranted and unprecedented powers. I shall take each one in turn.
We are all aware of the serious and difficult political challenges facing Northern Ireland today. The Good Friday agreement is an article of faith for the Labour Party: it is one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government, negotiated in partnership with parties and communities across Northern Ireland and with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. The institutions born out of that transformative peace are now under strain. Stormont is unable to function; months have passed without power-sharing; and democratic elections have not produced a functioning Government, meaning that the Executive cannot deliver for people during this economic crisis. This is a serious problem.
We recognise that the operation of the protocol, and the checks and barriers to trade that are an inherent feature of its design, have created problems for businesses. We accept that. Regrettably, it has heightened concerns, particularly among the unionist community, about their place in the UK, and these concerns must be heard.
As I have said on multiple occasions, this is not a one-sided issue. The EU too, as well as the UK Government, must show flexibility, but the only feasible way forward is through negotiation. Without swift progress there will have to be fresh elections in Northern Ireland and a serious Westminster Government, one with cool heads and steady hands, would work with all parties to ease current tensions.
With trust, good will, statecraft and hard work, these problems can and will be overcome. Instead, the Bill seeks to impose an unrealistic and likely unlawful unilateral solution. It is fundamentally flawed. Only a deal that works for all sides and which delivers for the people of Northern Ireland can be durable and provide the stability that businesses and the public deserve.
The good news is that the Government may finally be realising this. Last week, talks between the Government and the EU resumed. While some chose not to endorse this approach, Ministers apologised for their prior conduct in an extraordinary but welcome admission of the damage done in recent years. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has even said that he wants to make this legislation redundant—hear, hear to that. I welcome the Government’s long-overdue conversion to the merits of negotiation, but does that not undermine the entire basis for this Bill?
This brings me to our second central objection: the Bill is by any reasonable reading incompatible with international law. Britain has a proud record as a champion of the rule of law. This transcends personalities and party politics, stemming from our unique history and legal traditions, from Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights. However, this Government are willing to rip up those traditions and override a central element of an international treaty in domestic law, despite only recently agreeing the treaty forbidding such behaviour. They argue that this Bill is necessary, yet the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says that he is very positive about the chances of success in these new negotiations. Not only is there an alternative to this Bill but the Government prefer it, are working on it and think it is achievable.
Moreover, the Government have not exhausted all legal routes available to them under the protocol and wider agreements with the EU. We do not wish to see Article 16 triggered, but if the Government are so keen to implement safeguards, why have they not done so through the legal means at their disposal? Despite what the Minister said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, Article 16 could of course be used without jeopardising the common travel area or the energy market. I ask him to look again at his argument on that point.
The Bill shows the Government are willing to break binding treaties when it suits their internal party-political objectives to do so. That is disgraceful. If they proceed with this legislation, can they be surprised if our international partners start asking themselves whether we will keep our end of the bargain? As Ministers travel the globe to challenge the actions of dictators and despots, what message does it send when they stand here, in the mother of all parliaments, proposing measures that break international law? Reputations are hard won and easily lost. This Bill tarnishes our country’s reputation. That is simply not in our national interest. It is not who we are, nor is it the country we want to be. There is nothing more patriotic that this House can do than to defend Britain’s proud political values and legal principles.
The Bill is also a blatant power grab. It gifts the Government extraordinary powers while denying proper scrutiny by Parliament. Ministers may use these powers whenever they feel it is appropriate, disapply other parts of the protocol, or even amend Acts of Parliament. These are some of the widest-drawn Henry VIII powers I have seen during my more than 10 years in both Houses of Parliament. I am aware that that is a blink of an eye compared to the experience of some noble Lords here today, but surely this sets a dangerous precedent for the future. Just as we should defend our nation’s reputation as a law-abiding member of the international community, we should also preserve Parliament’s role as a check on ministerial power.
Finally, I know colleagues are interested in the various amendments to the substantive Motions on today’s Order Paper, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. First, let me say that I empathise with the noble Lord a great deal. If he does not mind my saying so, he has been a Conservative parliamentarian for more than 50 years and has been present in either this House or another place during all manner of political events and crises. It therefore says a lot about the Government and their handling of the protocol that he has felt compelled to table his amendments. I have tabled my own, setting out the concerns of not only the Labour Party but many noble Lords across the House. I am grateful to those who have engaged with the process of drafting it.
The Government need to reconsider this legislation. Ministers should at least report to the House on whether a pause in the passage of the Bill would be beneficial to these new negotiations. I know that many noble Lords would like to see the back of this Bill. I would, too; it is an abomination. But, however flawed, the Bill has the support of the elected House and we will proceed with it for today.
I welcome the Minister’s remarks that a negotiated settlement genuinely is the Government’s goal. I do not believe that that has always been the case, so his remarks to that effect are welcome. Taking that in good faith and with flexibility from both sides, an agreement is surely possible and we hope that this Bill can be consigned to history, where it belongs. It may be that Ministers reflect on today’s debate and decide to take the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, up on his suggestion of a pause, but if they insist on pushing ahead with Committee in two weeks’ time, we will, of course, be open to discussions with colleagues across House as to possible next steps.
To summarise, this Bill is the wrong approach at the wrong time. It breaks international law, damaging our reputation; it gives Ministers unparalleled delegated powers; and it does not enjoy the support of the majority of businesses or Assembly Members in Northern Ireland itself. The way forward is a grown-up, level-headed negotiation, not the continued threat of unilateral action, which would result in retaliatory measures that our economy could do without at such a precarious time.
We have been presented with a window of opportunity in recent days. The gap between the UK and the EU is not vast. Let us seize that opportunity and do the deal that should have been done three long years ago: a deal with the people of Northern Ireland at its heart that enables the whole of the United Kingdom to move forward and to regain our reputation as a country that acts in good faith.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, over the Recess, the Minister and I both travelled to regions of the world where peace building continues to need to be nurtured and where trust is a vital commodity. The offensive nature of this Bill is that in just one measure it breaches international law, undermines our reliability for other international trade agreements, divides communities rather than brings them together and abuses proper parliamentary legislative processes to an egregious degree. The fact that it is a Foreign Office Bill—a department which is meant to promote the currency of the British word in an unreliable world—is doing immeasurable damage. I believe that the House knows it and that the Minister, who is very highly respected here, must know it too. My colleagues will expand on these areas in their contributions.
When the Government presented their protocol, they did so with somewhat of a Janus face. “Best of both worlds” and “oven-ready deal” was how it was how it was spun, but the unspun accompanying impact assessment was clear that it was neither, and far more complex.
Chapter 6 of the impact assessment at the time, on risks, states in paragraph 295:
“An increase in uncertainty associated with the UK’s regulatory or customs position with the EU could affect the business environment and consumer confidence. The costs of new checks and administration associated with the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol may affect the profitability of businesses trading to and from NI … given uncertainty around price changes, or the UK’s and NI’s relationship with the EU, consumers may decide to delay spending, reducing consumer demand for goods and services”.
Paragraph 302 states:
“The proposals will have an effect on all UK businesses that move goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, irrespective of the business’s size … a ‘one size fits all’ approach for business trade requirements is likely to have a disproportionate effect on SMBs in particular”.
Paragraph 319 states:
“This could result in higher prices for Northern Ireland consumers purchasing goods which reached Northern Ireland from both Great Britain and Ireland.”
Remember, this is what the Government said would happen if it was working—not if it was not working, which is what the Minister seems to be suggesting today. Perhaps the Government thought that we would not read the impact assessment at the time, let alone remember it. Boris Johnson said that there would be no problems. Liz Truss said that the problems were “unintended”. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, said that they were someone else’s fault. Speak no evil, hear no evil, but see evil.
When Liz Truss said in the spring that there were “unintended consequences”, the poor officials who outlined the intended consequences must have rolled their eyes. However, with the joint monitoring and systems that the Minister has outlined today, they were the very ones that were rejected by the Government at the time of the protocol. I am therefore not surprised that some want the protocol ended.
Instead, the Government say that they want to mend it, not end it. So if they mend, not end, what will be left of it? Northern Ireland will still have to operate under a foreign power’s laws and have no say over them. It will still collect its taxes, still operate under its state aid rules and still have to comply with the hundreds of regulations listed in the annexe to the Brexit agreement that I spoke of in 2019.
On countless occasions, the Liberal Democrats, along with our Alliance partners in Northern Ireland, warned constructively but repeatedly that the Government knew they were in breach of the previous commitment that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, gave to this House in January 2019 when he said:
“We will give an unequivocal commitment that that there will be no divergence in rules between … Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.—[Official Report, 9/1/19; col. 2222.]
We were ridiculed and condemned, especially in the House of Commons by people such as Steve Baker MP. However, today, on behalf of my colleagues, I accept Steve Baker’s apology. By the way, some might be tempted to suggest that it is the fact that we have this Bill that forced Brussels’ hand to return to talks; it is perhaps the welcome hand of apology from a Northern Ireland Minister.
The Minister’s justification for the Bill today seems to be based on the coming to pass of the very impacts that the Government themselves said were going to happen, but that case for the Government is disingenuous as the Bill does not even address all the areas in the Government’s previous Command Paper. There, they listed what they said were the problems with the protocol —not least that it would be an ongoing “democratic deficit”, which, I remind the House, was a fully intended consequence. So the Government cannot say that this is the solution when it omits whole swathes of areas that they previously said were the problem.
At this point, it is worth saying that the impact of the protocol has been mixed, with some benefits for people in Northern Ireland, which has benefited from the single market. Those are not my words; they are the words of the Northern Ireland Economy Ministry under a DUP Minister. I will quote from Invest NI:
“This dual market access position means that Northern Ireland can become a gateway for the sale of goods to two of the world’s largest markets … This is a unique proposition for manufacturers based in Northern Ireland as well as those seeking a pivotal location from which to service GB and EU markets … These additional benefits further enhance Northern Ireland’s already strong proposition as a prime location to establish, or grow, a business”.
I think the whole House wishes the Northern Ireland economy well and wishes growth for it, but the Government’s legal position is that all of what the DUP Minister’s department is saying is a grave and imminent peril to this country. Both cannot be right.
Describing “grave and imminent peril” is in the Government’s legal position: it seems to be their case. They cite the UN International Law Commission’s Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts from 2001. However, Article 25 of that states:
“Necessity may not be invoked by a State … unless the act … is the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril”.
It goes on to say that
“necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding wrongfulness if … the State has contributed to the situation of necessity.”
The Government state that the UK has not contributed to this situation of necessity relied upon. But, of course, that is almost a risible explanation, given that the Minister at the time, in 2019, signed an impact assessment saying that they were party to it. Given that the UK has made policy decisions separate from the agreement that would have had a material impact on UK trade with Northern Ireland, such as on labelling requirements, the Government cannot credibly argue the UK has been a wholly unwitting and absent bystander to this process.
I agree with the Law Society of Scotland, which said that the Bill goes beyond what is necessary to resolve any trade problems and instead seeks to rewrite provisions in the withdrawal agreement and the NI protocol, such as those in Clauses 13, 14 and 20. When the Advocate-General winds up this debate, I would be grateful if he could clarify the Minister’s assertion, in response to the intervention, that Article 16 would bring about the cessation of the whole of the protocol, rather than be a mechanism that could resolve certain elements of it. I have to say that the contradiction in the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, over these two days arguing in the Supreme Court that the Scottish Government are seeking to act unlawfully but this evening defending the Government for breaking international law is jarring.
Why should this deplorable misuse of “necessity” and redefining “grave and imminent peril” worry us so much? Since I have been speaking on trade from these Benches, I am now on my seventh Trade Minister in the Lords. Every one has said “Our word is our bond” in implementing agreements. For all the trade agreements we have signed, the other side will know that they can be changed unilaterally. How can we be trusted if we choose not to use the dispute mechanisms written into trade agreements but just bring forward domestic legislation to disapply treaty obligations? Pacta sunt servanda.
The Bill presents no baseline information on disruption, subsequent to the original impact assessment. It presents no objective assessment of overall net impact on the economy of Northern Ireland and no regulatory impact assessment contrary. This is all contrary to clear Cabinet Office guidance on legislation.
Finally, of course, the Bill reflects the Government’s view of Parliament. The Law Society of Scotland has said that
“it is inappropriate to implement international agreements by regulation. That approach departs from the precedents set by the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 and the EU (Future Relationship) Act 2020.”
I would add that it is contrary to every commitment for every trade agreement since Brexit.
I conclude by quoting these remarks:
“The Bill represents as stark a transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive as we have seen throughout the Brexit process. The Bill is unprecedented in its cavalier treatment of Parliament, the EU and the Government’s international obligations … the legislative mechanism by which the Government propose to give to effect to the Bill’s purpose is wholly contrary to the principles of parliamentary democracy (namely, parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law and the accountability of the Executive to Parliament)”.
That was all from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House.
On the basis of the breach of international law, the damage to our standing and word around the world, the adding to divisions—rather than healing them—and the abuse of Parliament, the Government should think again. At the very least, we should reflect very carefully on the necessity of proceeding, given ongoing talks that we on these Benches wish well and which need to continue and conclude.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, in making foreign policy, it is a good idea to think about who you might have as an ally before taking the initiative. The only world leader I can think of who might raise a cheer if this Bill became law is Vladimir Putin, because it would sow division and discord among key members of the alliance supporting Ukraine. I note the Minister’s careful emphasis on technical discussions going on with the EU. I welcome that but, since the Government have also chosen to bring this Bill to Second Reading today, I want to take the opportunity to set it in the wider context of our national security.
The House is very well aware that we are at a very dangerous moment in the largest war in Europe since World War II. Putin’s massive gamble is going very badly. He is lashing out at civilian targets. He is seeking to frighten Ukraine’s supporters with his reckless talk of nuclear weapons—a sign of weakness rather than strength. This is a moment for unity among all those countries supporting Ukraine. That will be more necessary than ever during what will be a difficult winter.
What are the immediate prospects? My guess is that the fighting will subside when the cold weather comes and there will be stand-off along the front line. That will trigger a race against time to ensure that Ukraine is well enough funded and supported to have the upper hand when the fighting resumes in the spring.
The NATO response has been admirable. I have never known that organisation be stronger or more united than it is now. I congratulate the Government on all that they have done on that. The EU has also been more decisive than I would have expected, although it should be doing more to carry out its undertakings on financing and weapons. I gather that there has been good working co-ordination between the UK and the EU on issues such as Russia sanctions, although the Government find it hard to acknowledge that in public.
It was excellent that the Prime Minister went to the Prague summit of the 44 European countries but that is not a policy-making forum. It will meet only once every six months. There is no substitute for high-level UK-EU co-ordination in the coming months on the issues of the crisis that lie outside the remit of NATO. To take two of those issues, preventing sanctions evasion will be essential if we are to prevent Russia rebuilding its stocks of weapons using western microelectronics, and energy security and supply will be a vital issue on which we must talk to the EU.
One of the greatest risks to western strategy is Ukraine fatigue setting in across Europe as high energy prices take their toll on public opinion in many countries. Look only at what is happening in Italy with the new coalition before it is even formed, to say nothing of Orbán’s antics in Hungary. What is the relevance of all this to the Second Reading of this Bill? It should be a top priority for Britain to keep support for Ukraine strong and to prevent it ebbing away. There is a real premium on solidarity. It is therefore the worst possible moment for the British Government to be pushing forward on taking powers to renege on our international law commitments to the EU. If the Bill becomes law, the EU will retaliate. Remember the very careful words from Commissioner Šefčovič, who said that enacting this Bill would undermine
“the trust that is necessary for bilateral EU-UK cooperation within the framework of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement”—
the trust that is so vital right now. Is this really the time risk a trade war with the EU, when we have a real war a couple of hours’ flying time away?
I am glad that the Prime Minister has now accepted that France is a friend, not a foe, and that she and President Macron agreed in principle to a summit next year. Very good, but if the Bill becomes law, a reset with the French is out of the question, as is an improvement in bilateral relations with our other EU partners.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, referred to President Biden’s comments to the Prime Minister, as reported by the White House. He told the Prime Minister about the importance of a negotiated agreement with the EU on the protocol. Surely what is going on in Ukraine puts everything else into perspective. It is good to know that we are having technical discussions with the EU on the protocol, but we have found in the past that threatening unilateral action does not have a positive impact on negotiations with the EU—rather the reverse. If the Government insist on pushing the Bill through and on to the statute book, it will open up new divisions with the EU and damage our reputation as a serious country in all democratic countries around the world. I strongly support the case for a pause at some stage in the passage of this Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts. I have no experience of living with the protocol and no expertise in the technicalities of the Bill. However, reflecting on it has sent me to Hannah Arendt’s seminal analysis of the human condition.
Arendt spoke of the unpredictability of human life that arises from, as she put it, the “basic unreliability” of human beings,
“who can never guarantee today who they will be tomorrow”;
this applies also to their successors. The remedy for unpredictability and unreliability, Arendt contended, is the faculty of promise making. Promises provide the stability that enables common life to be established and maintained in an uncertain future. As the wisdom of age-old liturgy puts it, they should be not entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but soberly and after serious thought.
The reaction to this Bill has been strong, at the root of which is a visceral sense that promises made and accepted in good faith are being unmade, and that the stability on which human community relies is being shaken. These roots go deeper. In my dealings over the Brexit years with European colleagues through Coventry’s many links, I saw how many of them felt that covenants to common life, upon which they had built their futures, were crumbling beneath them, and that the British could no longer be trusted.
I recognise the complexities of applying Arendt’s analysis to the Bill. There are many, of course, who regard the protocol as the undoing of promises made to the people of Northern Ireland over the generations, some enshrined in law and some in other agreements. However, I share concerns that the Bill risks not only reinforcing attitudes of distrust with European partners, including Ireland, just at the point in history where concerted action is needed between allies, but undermining our reputation in a world where future security and peace will rely on the capacity of states to make and keep their promises.
Is this not the time for a reconciliation of relationships, for the healing of the wounds of recent history, for rebuilding trust for the cause of peace? As we have heard, the new Government have shown they have seen that need and are ready to grasp that opportunity. The positive reactions of European leaders to the signals sent by the Conservative Party conference, the Prime Minister’s part in the European Political Community meeting and the public comments of the Northern Ireland Minister, together with the opening comments of the Minister today, show that the protocol gives a chance to reset the relationship between the UK and EU, rather than further disrupt it.
My hope is that the problems of the protocol—which I do not doubt—will be resolved in that spirit through constructive negotiation, and that trust in the good faith of the UK will be restored. My concern is that this Bill will threaten that good work.
I was moved by the Archbishop of Armagh’s sermon in Belfast Cathedral during our recent commemorations. With a diocese sitting in two jurisdictions, he knows something about the tensions between communities and how they have been heightened by the protocol. Conscious of Her Majesty’s part in reconciliation between the peoples, the archbishop said:
“Reconciliation is about the restoration of broken relationships, and the word should never be cheapened by pretending it is an easy thing to achieve. By and large in the work of reconciliation most of our victories will be achieved quietly and in private”.
Now is the opportune time for that quiet diplomacy, which will bear much fruit in public.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, it is very unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, should tell this House that the only merit he could see in the Bill is that it would please President Putin. That is so over the top and inappropriate. Something happens to people who lost the argument on Brexit which means that sometimes they simply cannot see the wood for the trees.
I have only five minutes, unlike my noble friend Lord Cormack, who has abused the procedures of this House by tabling an amendment at Second Reading. That is a complete abuse of how we carry out Second Readings, which are meant to be for us to discuss the merits of a Bill and not, traditionally, for us to have a vote. By tabling an amendment my noble friend is able to speak for 15 minutes, while everyone else can speak for only five. If we all did that, it would completely wreck the process of Second Reading.
I say to my noble friend, who is a friend, that to use an amendment at Second Reading to try to prevent the Government delivering the programme that was supported by the other place—this Bill was brought to this House without amendment—is a complete usurpation of what this House is about. We should remember that we are not elected in this House. They are elected at the other end of the Corridor and they are accountable to their voters. One of the things about the Bill, which is fundamental, is that it is about restoring democracy to those people in Ulster who are part of our United Kingdom by restoring their ability to vote on the laws that apply to them and on the taxation that is being levied on them without their consent.
I do not for a moment want this Bill to be the way we resolve this problem with the protocol. There is all this hindsight stuff about the protocol, what was said at the time and everything else. The fact is that none of us expected the kind of bloody-mindedness we have seen in operation in Northern Ireland, which has destroyed people’s livelihoods. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, may wave his piece of paper, but it is a duty of a Government to ensure that people living in one part of the United Kingdom are treated the same as those in other parts of the United Kingdom.
It is perfectly possible for an agreement to be reached on fair lines. The European Union is entitled to ensure that its single market is protected, just as we are entitled to ensure that our single market is protected. That is what the Government’s negotiations are about. I pray that they will be successful. We are making progress. That is why, at this very moment when we are making progress, it would be completely inappropriate for this House to seek to undermine the Government’s position.
The House might not want to listen to me, but it should listen to people such as my noble friend Lord King, who has been a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. This has been a long process. The way the protocol is being implemented threatens the Good Friday agreement and the ability of people in Northern Ireland to live in peace and carry out their wishes, which, at the moment, are to remain part of the United Kingdom, where the rule of law is determined by them.
My noble friend Lord Cormack suggested that we should listen to the views of the President of the United States. What has the President of the United States got to do with maintaining the integrity of this country? I understand that there were divisions on Brexit, but that is behind us. We have taken a decision on Brexit and for once people ought to stand up for the interests of this country and not argue for the interests of Europe when we are trying to negotiate the best deal for our own people. Talk of a spirit of unity would be far more reasonable if that spirit was shown by this House getting behind the Government to ensure that they can deliver what every citizen of the United Kingdom is entitled to: the right to determine their laws and their levels of tax. I believe the negotiations will be successful and that they are being done in good faith, but opposing this Bill and abusing our procedures is no way to deliver success for Northern Ireland or respect for this House.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, if it had not been for the United States of America I very much doubt that there would have been a Good Friday agreement. The support we had from our American colleagues and friends was immense.
I return to the necessity for the Bill, which in my view does not exist. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, quite rightly referred to using Article 16. There would not then have been any need for a Bill to be in front of us at all.
I am amazed that the Minister, who I respect immensely, referred to the protocol as if it had come down from the heavens. He denounced in his speech great parts of the protocol which his own Government created. That is the amazing part of this debate.
I want to refer specifically to the Good Friday agreement, because it has been prayed in aid by all sides in this debate in order to justify the Bill and the situation we are in now. I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland too, and I was responsible—a long time ago; 26 years ago now—for part of the talks that led to the Good Friday agreement. I chaired strands 1 and 3 of that agreement. In so far as it was concerned, the agreement was based very largely on a couple of issues, one of which was common membership of the European Union. We were in the same club and there is no doubt in my mind that, if you read the Good Friday agreement, you will see that going right through it is reference to our joint membership of the EU. Of course that was an important issue as well.
However, the big issue, above all, was that after three years of negotiation we achieved a deep consensus among the people of Northern Ireland in order to achieve what we did. To that extent, I accept the unionist—or some unionists’—point of view that there is no consensus with regard to the protocol. Of course, very many nationalists will argue the opposite, but it remains the case that there is no consensus. There was no consensus when we started the talks that led to the Good Friday agreement in any event, and, when we had agreed it, you could not say “Well, I don’t like that bit about the police”, or “I don’t like the release of political prisoners”, as they were called, or “I don’t like that side of it on the north-south agreement”, or “I don’t like that side on criminal justice”. We had to accept the whole of it in order to ensure that there was peace in Northern Ireland, and the people of Ireland, north and south, voted in simultaneous referendums to agree to it.
It is extremely important still to accept the principle that you cannot just have bits of it with which you agree. You all agree that you should agree by negotiation. Look at what is happening in Northern Ireland now: the very fact that there is no Assembly, no Executive and no north-south bodies is equally against the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, as is the case with regard to the border in the sea between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
There is, of course, only one solution. The Minister rightly referred to the preference being negotiations. I do not agree with it being a preference; I believe it is an absolute necessity. The only conceivable way in which this can be resolved is by proper, structured negotiations —not just going across to Belfast for a couple of days and coming back—between the EU and the United Kingdom, and between the Irish Government and the British Government. Both Governments are guarantors of another international treaty, the Good Friday agreement, so it was great to see that the Irish Foreign Minister met our Foreign Secretary the other day. That is a good start. There also need to be proper negotiations between all the political parties in Northern Ireland. It is only by those detailed, structured negotiations between Governments, the EU and the political parties that this issue can be resolved.
“Ah, it’s too difficult”, people will say. They said that in 1998. Look at the issues that we did resolve, despite all those problems. We can resolve this one. The alternative is direct rule, and none of us wants that to occur. We are now almost 25 years on from the Good Friday agreement. That could be a means by which we could relook at it—it says in the agreement that we can review it. If we do not that, if we do not negotiate properly, and if we rely on the Bill and other things to try to sort this problem out, then the peace, prosperity and stability will indeed be in jeopardy.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, who always speaks with such experience, wisdom and, if I may say so, honest-to-goodness common sense.
As previous speakers have said, this is a bad and unnecessary Bill, which sets a number of dangerous precedents. As my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed set out so clearly in his speech, the Bill is widely considered to breach international law. It damages our international reputation and threatens the economy at a time when we are already facing economic turmoil on so many fronts. Perhaps most importantly of all, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, spelled out so clearly, the Bill is not something that the majority of people in Northern Ireland or the business community actually want.
Over the last few days, I have therefore found myself asking why the Government continue to insist on pushing ahead with the Bill when the new Prime Minister and her new Cabinet could have used the opportunity to withdraw the counterproductive threat that it represents. If the Bill was meant to reverse the distrust that has developed in Northern Ireland politics in recent years, pushing ahead with it, rather than using the available route of negotiations, risks alienating the majority in the Northern Ireland Assembly who want to see a negotiated settlement. Does the Minister not agree that this is a very high price to pay at a time when re-establishing trust is so vital for progress to be made in Northern Ireland politics and for the Executive and Assembly to be able to get back to work? Does he further acknowledge that recent opinion polls in Northern Ireland indicate that the majority of people want to see the protocol amended and improved so that it can be made to work?
If the Bill was meant to strengthen the Government’s negotiating hand, it is very hard to understand how threatening to breach a previously agreed international treaty will encourage other future partners to trust us. It is also potentially deeply damaging to our relationships with both Washington and Brussels; that matters at a time when it is so vital for us to stand together against Vladimir Putin’s increasingly appalling actions in Ukraine and, indeed, within Russia itself.
If this legislation was meant to reassure the Northern Ireland business community then it is hard to see how pushing forward with the Bill rather than concluding the negotiations as soon as possible will be helpful for providing economic certainty at this time. Businesses in Northern Ireland, as well as those businesses in Britain who work with Northern Ireland, are crying out for a period of economic certainty so that they can plan and move on from the atmosphere of uncertainty that has prevailed since 2016.
It is very welcome that Chris Heaton-Harris has changed the tone since becoming Northern Ireland Secretary. When I worked in the European Parliament, Chris Heaton-Harris was known as an MEP who understood the importance of co-operation and building trust, so it is welcome that, at least so far, he is adopting a constructive and positive approach. This is greatly to be welcomed and long overdue.
Like my noble friend Lord Purvis, I also welcome the belated acknowledgement by Steve Baker that mistakes have been made. Since 2016, politics and the economy of this country have suffered from a series of short-term fixes, primarily to deal with splits within the Conservative Party. It was never going to be possible to do all of the things that successive Conservative Governments have promised regarding Brexit but, given the global political and economic crises we are currently facing, surely this is the time for the Government to think of the long-term good and avoid yet another period of potentially disastrous, self-inflicted economic and reputational damage to this country.
I urge the Minister in his concluding remarks to pause or, preferably, drop this Bill altogether and give new impetus to the negotiations, and to make sure, for the sake of the people of Northern Ireland and the whole of the United Kingdom, that this time they succeed.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, I speak today as chairman of the committee on the protocol in your Lordships’ House, nearly all of whose members are speaking in the Second Reading debate today. I am only too conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, is speaking after me
We on the committee are united in our view of the importance of scrutinising the protocol and the effect that it will have and indeed is already having on the economy and the politics of Northern Ireland. As our latest report shows, that economic impact is hard to discern with certainty. Many of those involved in east- west trade—trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland—are suffering. That is particularly true of small and medium-sized enterprises. At the same time, many of those involved in north-south trade are prospering. But all those who spoke to us agreed that the present uncertainty is destabilising, and uncertainty is the one thing that all businesses hate. That is why we concluded that a mutually agreed solution between the UK and the EU is the best outcome —but it will require flexibility and compromise on all sides, and it will also require trust.
I am glad that trust is now being re-established. It is a necessary, though not a sufficient, prerequisite for a lasting agreement. I am glad too that negotiations, even technical ones, have been restarted. They will be tough on some issues. On red/green channels for trade with Northern Ireland, for example, or on data transfers, the differences between the UK and EU positions do not seem all that huge to me. On other issues, such as the longer-term divergence between the economies of the UK and the EU, regulatory structures and governance issues, including the role of the ECJ, the differences are much greater and the negotiations will inevitably be tougher. But at least the negotiations have restarted and, if they succeed, the Bill before us will never be needed. But it is before us and the protocol committee of your Lordships’ House has begun an inquiry into it, with evidence sessions tomorrow and over the next few weeks, and with a visit to Belfast and Newry next week.
Meanwhile, there is one question on which I would welcome advice from the Minister in answering the debate. One of the recurring themes of the Northern Ireland committee’s reports has been the need for the Government to take full account of the different shades of opinion in Northern Ireland in formulating their approach to the protocol. We have heard that there is a palpable sense in Northern Ireland that their views are not fully considered. Could the Minister give us an assurance that Northern Ireland opinion will be taken into account as the negotiations proceed? Could he also say how Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland politicians, will be involved in the negotiations themselves?
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jay, who chairs our committee on the protocol with such distinction.
In my view, the Bill is necessary and provides the potential for helping to resolve the crisis in the political process in Northern Ireland brought about by the protocol. There are many aspects that we would prefer were dealt with differently, all of which will need to be addressed and resolved in due course. However, it is clear that the protocol, albeit implemented only partially so far, has the following effects. First, as the courts in Northern Ireland have adjudicated, it rips up the free trading arrangements enshrined in Article 6 of the Act of Union itself. It runs completely contrary to the cross-community arrangements—not majority rule, which some people are referring to, but the cross-community arrangements—that are at the heart of the Belfast agreement, unless people want to change the Belfast agreement to majority rule. It is contrary to the consent principle. As the Minister said, it upsets the delicate balance of the agreements, and it has undermined and continues to undermine the institutions of the very agreement that it was designed and purports to safeguard.
The protocol also negates democracy itself. Up until 31 December 2020, the people of Northern Ireland, in common with the rest of the United Kingdom, were able to elect legislators to make all the laws to which they were subject. From 1 January 2021, every citizen of the United Kingdom living in Northern Ireland has had the experience of having the significance of their votes slashed as the responsibility for making the laws of Northern Ireland over vast swathes of the economy has been taken from them and given to the members of a legislature of a foreign political entity of which they are not part, and in which they have no representation—in relation not just to one statute or one area of law, but to 300 areas of law.
The outworking of Northern Ireland being subject to European Union law, while the rest of the United Kingdom is not, has massive, far-reaching, detrimental consequences, both constitutional and economic, which will get worse over time as divergence increases. Given that the rest of the United Kingdom is by far our greatest market for trade, as a result of dividing up our country in this way we have increasing friction for goods from one part of the United Kingdom to another as a result of needless checks and tonnes of paperwork, and we have divergence of trade, restricted consumer choice and increased costs. We have threats to investment through having different state aid arrangements and regimes for Northern Ireland and Great Britain, as the Minister acknowledged when we discussed this in Committee. We are denied the benefit as British citizens of the United Kingdom of UK-wide tax changes, while being subject to EU VAT rules.
As I looked around to try to describe the reality of what confronts us, the only model that I could find that comes close to fitting is the UN category of a non-self-governing territory, which is the current term for a colony. Most colonies today are largely self-governing; they remain classified as colonies because they are not entirely self-governing. That such a solution be thought desirable, or indeed workable, for part of this United Kingdom in the 21st century beggars belief.
We have heard about this Bill and international law this afternoon. Of course, nobody seems to object to the breach of international law which is at the heart of extending unilaterally grace periods or standstill. That is a breach of international law, and yet everybody seems quite content to go along with that.
The erosion of our citizens’ rights to fundamental democratic rights under this protocol is contrary to international law. We should look again at Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 21 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which states:
“Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives”.
That is denied to the people of Northern Ireland when it comes to legislating on large parts of the economy, and of course it violates the Belfast agreement, which commits to no erosion of democratic rights. Article 2.1 of the protocol refers to no diminishment in the rights accorded by the Belfast agreement, and those who support the Belfast agreement so vehemently should be defending what we are trying to do in restoring democratic rights to the people of Northern Ireland.
So, the greatest urgency now is to restore full democratic rights to people in Northern Ireland. We cannot defend and support the sovereignty of Ukraine—rightly so—and at the same time defend and support the trashing of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. Whether by negotiation or by legislation, the objective of restoring sovereignty to the people of Northern Ireland, to all citizens of the United Kingdom who should all be treated equally, must be achieved, and with it the full restoration of Northern Ireland’s place in the internal market of the United Kingdom.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I am genuinely grateful for the opportunity to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for whom I have much respect, and indeed I have a good deal of sympathy with the concerns which he has expressed. But, as I hope to explain, this Bill is not the way to alleviate those concerns.
I also echo those who have paid tribute to my noble friend the Minister and expressed pleasure that he remains in his post, and of course I share the hope and aspirations, which have been widely expressed, that the difficulties we face can be solved through negotiation—and I welcome the fact that those negotiations are now under way. But the Government have asked your Lordships’ House to give this Bill a Second Reading today, and it is our duty therefore to consider its merits.
The Government seek to justify the provisions of the Bill, which would otherwise be a clear breach of international law, by reference to the doctrine of necessity. That doctrine is set out in Article 25 of the relevant treaty, which states that the doctrine cannot be invoked unless it
“is the only way”—
I stress: “the only way”—
“for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril”.
Even if it is assumed that all the other requirements of the article are met—and there are of course many reservations about that—it cannot possibly be argued that this Bill is the only way in which the state’s interests can be safeguarded. It is not the only way because the protocol itself provides a way, a perfectly legal way, in which that objective can be achieved. It is to be found in Article 16.
I did not properly hear the answer which my noble friend the Minister gave in response to my intervention, but if he really suggested that the problem with Article 16 was that it could apply only to the whole protocol, and that therefore freedom of movement provisions would be affected, I have to tell him as gently as I can that there is absolutely no basis for that interpretation of Article 16, which gives the Government a wide discretion as to the measures which they could take. I am genuinely bewildered by the Government’s decision not to proceed by invoking Article 16. Your Lordships may be interested in the explanations for its rejection which were given to me by the Home Secretary when she was Attorney-General.
My noble friend the Minister had asked me to speak to the then Foreign Secretary, now of course the Prime Minister, about this issue. When the conversation turned to the legality of the Government’s proposals, she referred me to the Attorney-General, which your Lordships may think is in itself not entirely insignificant. The then Attorney-General told me that the decision not to invoke Article 16 was a political one. The reason, she told me, was that Article 16 permits only measures which are proportionate. I should repeat that, although it will not take long for the implications to sink in: Article 16 was not invoked because it permits only measures which are proportionate. To put it very mildly, this of course reinforces the unanswerable argument that the Government simply cannot contend that the Bill is the only course open to them. It must follow, therefore, that it constitutes a clear breach of international law.
Why does all this matter? It matters because, although I acknowledge that Parliament can legislate in breach of international law, it should not do so—and it especially should not do so at the present time. Of course it is the case that, on the scale of iniquity, the Bill, for all its flaws, does not begin to compare to the invasion of Ukraine. But Ministers—our Ministers—frequently criticise that invasion on the ground that it is a breach of international law. My noble friend did it in the course of his opening remarks. The Defence Secretary, for whom I have great respect, did it in a newspaper article on 25 September. He said of Vladimir Putin:
“We take everything he does seriously, because this is a man without any scruples and any regard for international law.”
The thing about the law, whether it is domestic or international, is that you cannot pick and choose. You cannot pray it in aid in one context and have no regard for it in another, so I urge the Government to think again. They can achieve their objectives perfectly legally by invoking Article 16, but if they persist with the Bill, I shall vote against it—not, of course, today—and I urge your Lordships to do likewise.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howard. I am also a member of your Lordships’ committee on the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol. As a resident of Northern Ireland, I firmly believe that the Bill is not the way forward. In fact, it acts as an impediment and a barrier to those negotiations. I am pleased that the negotiations between the UK and the EU have resumed, because there are issues with the protocol. I speak as someone who supports the protocol because, during and post the Brexit referendum, we always said that Northern Ireland needed to have special status—and the current UK Government negotiated the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. So, as regards as any other stories that might be coming at us, we might be talking porkies, as my noble friend Lord Murphy said, and the Government should remember that they negotiated it.
There are issues with the protocol that have to be addressed properly in the negotiations—in relation to tariffs on steel and in relation to groupage and the issues encountered by the haulage industry—but these can be resolved only by proper negotiations between the UK and the EU, without placing guns on the table to act as impediments to the discussions. There are challenges and difficulties in the Bill: it is a breach of international law; Ministers are given undue powers to legislate later on to do what they wish; and it will not deal with the problems in Northern Ireland.
Over the summer, I talked to many people—including members of Newry Chamber and the Warrenpoint chamber—who operate along the border. I talked to people in industries, including Seatruck Ferries and HMT Shipping in Warrenpoint and Lakeland Dairies. For the dairy industry, which is all-island, the Bill will legislate inefficiencies into the dairy supply chain with the dual regulatory regime and certification process. The Bill does not work for primary producers, and it has the potential to undermine Northern Ireland’s access to the EU single market. I have talked to the Ulster Farmers Union and, although it sees issues with the protocol, it also sees benefits.
The Bill rejects the NIP joint committee process for resolving disputes. It removes the ECJ from NIP decisions, and VAT and excise duties will be set by UK Ministers, rather than at agreed EU rates. In fact, the Bill is at variance with the Good Friday agreement because the principle of consent in that agreement centres around the issue of unity—“Do you want to be part of a united Ireland or to remain within the United Kingdom?”—and we do not need any confusion around that issue. The equality and human rights commissions, which are mandated to look after Article 2 of the protocol, greatly fear that Clauses 13, 15 and 20 will dilute those human rights and equality protections. This needs to be looked into.
Environmental organisations, such as Greener UK, believe that the Bill is
“extremely broad in scope and creates significant risk to the natural environment across the single biogeographic unit of the island of Ireland”,
through the powers taken by government without parliamentary scrutiny and, above all, the insufficient protections for the natural environment within the protocol.
There are areas for negotiation: the resolution of the customs issues and controls; the need for an SPS veterinary agreement; and the solution to the EU steel tariffs in Northern Ireland. We want streamlining, with no more individual certificates for agri-food products. Through Vice-President Šefčovič, the EU has indicated that it is prepared not only to negotiate but to provide those solutions, so let us get down to those negotiations. Only through proper negotiations between the UK and the EU will we achieve success and the restoration of our political institutions of the Good Friday agreement, which should never have been blocked or brought down in the first place.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I grew up in Ireland and most of my family still live there, so I want to concentrate on the practical implications of this Bill for ordinary people and ordinary traders on both sides of the border. A good example is Northern Ireland’s 3,000 dairy farmers: together, they produce 2.5 billion litres of milk every year, in turn enabling highly valuable exports. Northern Irish dairy goes to 80 countries around the world, and although the six counties represent just 3% of the UK population, they account for 31% of UK dairy exports by value. However, a third of the milk produced cannot be processed within Northern Ireland because of a lack of processing capacity in the Province. The milk needs to be processed in the only factories with adequate capacity, which happen to be located just across the border in the Republic of Ireland. However, for milk to cross the border, a vet from Northern Ireland’s food safety agency must certify that the milk meets EU standards over its whole life cycle. If it does, it can go into the Republic and come back again—pasteurised and processed—ready to go on to make money for the UK economy around the world.
However, if Northern Ireland operates a dual regulatory regime, as proposed in this Bill, products such as animal feed—some from the EU and some from the UK—are likely to be mixed up within the Province, making it impossible for vets to certify that an animal’s milk genuinely meets EU standards. This means that the cow’s produce will be unable to cross the border and unable to be processed. Noble Lords will be aware that you cannot just throw unusable milk down the drain because of the serious ecological issues that that would cause—doing so is rightly banned in British law. So, of necessity, a massive cull of one-third of Northern Ireland’s dairy herd will be needed. Leaving aside the extraordinary economic and animal welfare implications of that process, Northern Ireland does not have the vets or abattoirs to undertake such a cull. Since the animals will not be able to be certified for export—for the same reasons that their milk cannot be certified—they will not be able to go over the border for slaughter either. It will be a Catch-22 situation, full of crushing uncertainty for Northern Ireland’s farming industry. Indeed, the only certainty is that farmers will find themselves unable to repay loans they took out in good faith, in the expectation of profits from the sale of their milk. A collapse in farming incomes will follow, inevitably destroying the hard-won, peaceful sustainability of every local town and village in Northern Ireland.
The risk with which the Minister must grapple this afternoon is not just to the local economies concerned; there is also an inevitable risk that darker forces will exploit newly impoverished communities, fanning the flames of resentment and driving a wave of renewed unrest. Brexit was not supported by Northern Ireland and was opposed by the Republic. Yet both sides did everything they could to make Brexit work, and the result was the protocol. Bits of these agreements cannot be cherry-picked away: each part of an agreement is a delicate building block of Anglo-Irish relations; move one part, and you risk the whole thing falling over. And for what? After all, if the Government are serious about not having lower standards for food safety and animal welfare than the EU, they surely have nothing to fear from a Swiss-style veterinary agreement with Ireland and the EU, and nothing to gain from this absurd mess of dual regulation.
It is time for a new approach prioritising practical trading relationships, prioritising local economies and, most of all, prioritising hard-won peace over the academic sovereignty that Brexit is alleged to bring. In short, it is time to ditch this rotten Bill.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I want to focus on why this Bill would, if implemented, be a manifest breach of international law. Let me identify first what is not in dispute. The Government are not suggesting that it would be proper to bring forward a Bill which, if implemented, would breach international law—and quite rightly so. The Government also do not dispute that the Bill would resile from important aspects of the protocol and that this would be a breach of international law, unless they can rely on the doctrine of necessity. There is also no dispute about the criteria for invoking the doctrine of necessity. Your Lordships have heard that the Government must show that their action
“is the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril”,
and the Government accept that necessity cannot apply if
“the State has contributed to the situation of necessity.”
The Government cannot dispute these criteria, because they are set out in Article 25 of the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on state responsibility 2001, a codification of the basic rules of international law.
It seems to me that there are three reasons why the Bill, if implemented, would plainly breach international law. The first has already been addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Howard. The Bill is not the only way to deal with the perceived problem. The noble Lord rightly drew attention to Article 16, a mechanism in the protocol for addressing
“serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties”.
I entirely agree with what he said. But there are other problems. The second problem is that there is no “imminent peril”. The Government have been complaining about the protocol for many months—indeed, since soon after we signed it. And even if these fundamental difficulties were somehow to be overcome, there is a third fundamental difficulty: the Government have themselves caused the perceived problem, or at least substantially contributed to it. We signed the protocol in order, as then Prime Minister Boris Johnson said, to “get Brexit done”.
The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, in opening this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, listed the difficulties that are caused, they say, by the protocol. Well, the Government should have thought about that before signing it. The International Law Commission’s notes to Article 25 point out, at paragraph 20, that the International Court of Justice has held that a state cannot rely on necessity when it has,
“‘helped, by act or omission’”
to bring about the situation of which it now complains. It is elementary that a state cannot sign a treaty and then seek to resile from it on the basis that the terms it has agreed damage the interests of the signing state.
The Government then say, “Yes, but the EU is not applying the protocol in good faith”—the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, referred to bloody-mindedness, as he put it, by the EU. But there are mechanisms for resolving a dispute about the obligations of the parties to the protocol. We agreed, by Article 12, to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice in Luxembourg to resolve disputes. The Government and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, may not like it, but that is what we agreed to in the protocol.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
The noble Lord speaks with great authority and expertise—I have heard it often before and it is very good indeed—but does he think Articles 49, 50, 51 and 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties also have relevance and allow some scope to move away from the narrow confines of the treaty as it stands now, when the other parties may be breaking it in some way?
Lord Pannick (CB)
I think the noble Lord refers to obligations of good faith. The answer is that the protocol sets out a mechanism, as I said, for resolving the dispute between the parties—the UK and the EU—as to whether each is complying with its obligations. The United Kingdom cannot say that the test of necessity is satisfied when the protocol sets out a dispute-resolving mechanism.
I agree with the excellent speeches by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis: this is a manifest breach of international law and I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, the Advocate-General for Scotland, will address these points when he answers this debate.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I support the Bill. If fully enacted, this legislation has the potential to provide tangible solutions that will free Northern Ireland from the grip of the crippling protocol arrangements and restore our rights as British citizens to trade freely with the rest of our nation under Article 6 of the Acts of Union.
Nobody who values the union supports barriers remaining in place between Northern Ireland and the rest of this nation. Equally, nobody who values devolved governance in Northern Ireland should countenance the protocol, as it has undermined the principle of consent and dealt a blow to consensus-building politics. If we do not act now, we will reach a critical point where, after the full implementation of the protocol, Northern Ireland will be subject to an ever-expanding series of laws imposed by a foreign entity without any say or vote by its elected representatives.
While the rest of the United Kingdom has secured its freedom to deregulate or go in a different direction on aid or taxation, Northern Ireland will be left behind and face fresh restrictions and challenges simply because it is tied to the protocol. The trade friction between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is fuelling the cost of living crisis in Northern Ireland and restricting consumer choice. The Northern Ireland protocol is not only unsustainable in its form but incompatible with the Acts of Union. It threatens the sovereignty of this nation and undermines devolved governance, which requires cross-community buy-in and support if it is to function fully.
As it stands, the Bill provides a clear framework to address many of the issues outlined today. It provides a framework to remove the European Court of Justice as the ultimate arbiter of the protocol, smoothing the passage of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and bringing Northern Ireland fully back into the UK’s VAT and excise duty regime.
The Bill must pass and its regulation-making powers be fully deployed as quickly as possible to avert impending political crisis in Northern Ireland. We must not waste any more time talking about checks. The economic problem is not the checks but the paralysing cost implications of applying third-country certification burdens on the qualitatively very different consignments of goods that flow within economies—as with Great Britain-Northern Ireland trade—rather than between them, which make trading uneconomic.
If the protocol were ever implemented economically—let us not forget that, thankfully, it never has been because of the grace periods—hauliers have made it absolutely clear that the certification costs associated with taking goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland would make that undertaking uneconomic and Northern Ireland's supply chains would break down within 24 hours, creating an existential economic crisis for part of our United Kingdom.
Similarly, the political problem is not at root the checks, but the fact that the people of Northern Ireland have been degraded as a result of their right to make laws in some 300 areas being taken from them. The value of their vote has been diminished. Every time a new law is opposed on Northern Ireland by the EU, the human rights provisions in the Belfast agreement with respect to political engagement are violated. That violation cuts to the quick—the knowledge that, while the people of England, Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland must have the right to stand for election or vote to elect people to make all the laws to which they are subject, the people of Northern Ireland must be subject to the unique and deeply distressing indignity of being told that they do not always deserve to be afforded the same level of respect.
The Bill may be needed—and needed urgently—and I strongly urge all noble Lords to pass it today, and certainly without any six-month delay. Quite apart from anything else, this will strengthen the Government’s negotiating hand, while a six-month delay would simply weaken it. I support the Bill.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I served as a member of the sub-committee on the protocol under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Jay. As has been repeatedly stated, the Bill constitutes a breach of the international obligations into which we entered freely. If we do not comply with those obligations, we will do great damage to our reputation and those who come to negotiate with us in the future will remember. We will not be trusted.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated in its 12th report that
“the legislative mechanism by which the Government propose to give to effect to the Bill’s purpose is wholly contrary to the principles of parliamentary democracy (namely, parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law and the accountability of the Executive to Parliament)”.
Indeed, the powers given to Ministers would permit a future weakening of protocol Article 2, which provides for the preservation of the Good Friday agreement “in all its dimensions” including its human rights and equality safeguards.
The sub-committee’s first report identified serious problems in how the protocol was being applied. It also pointed out that the search for solutions up to that point had been hampered by fundamental flaws in both the UK and the EU’s approach The report concluded that unless urgent steps were taken to correct this, Northern Ireland and its peoples would become permanent casualties in the post-Brexit landscape. The situation now is that the people of Northern Ireland are becoming casualties in that landscape. So are those GB businesses which, having developed trade links with Northern Ireland, have now decided because of the additional cost that future trade with Northern Ireland is not sustainable at present.
The committee’s second report said:
“The economic data necessary to conduct a comprehensive statistical analysis of the impact of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland is not yet available. Nevertheless … the economic impact is becoming clearer … Our witnesses have described a dichotomy of experience, characterised by one as ‘feast or famine’”.
Northern Ireland’s economy includes a significant percentage of SMEs, and it has been established that many firms in Great Britain are now refusing to, or are reluctant to, trade east to west because of increased bureaucracy, the need for enhanced staff resources, increases to cost and delivery times and reduced flexibility. The inevitable increasing regulatory divergence between the UK and the EU is also a cause of uncertainty and concern, as are the effects of Brexit.
Trade from north to south has undoubtedly benefited from the protocol. Sectors of the economy, such as the dairy and meat-processing industries, depend on complex cross-border supply chains on the island of Ireland. Damage would be caused to those sectors should access to the EU single market be lost. The committee’s report therefore says that the overall impact of the protocol on the Northern Ireland economy remains uncertain.
Witnesses to the committee have told us what is needed to resolve the difficulties underpinning the negative economic impact of the protocol. There is creativity and determination among them in resolving the difficulties, which appear to be fundamentally bureaucratic. What is necessary now is constructive dialogue underpinned by a determination to reach resolution on the many issues that have arisen. What is not needed is the effective emasculation of the protocol, which has already resulted in multiple infringement proceedings against the UK by the EU. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, there are provisions in Article 16 of the protocol which provide safeguards against
“serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties”.
These should be utilised effectively by the UK and the EU.
It is important to state that the protocol has not caused civil disturbance of any significance in Northern Ireland. People want to see the problems resolved. There is significant concern that, although the Government state that there will be no diminution as a consequence of the Bill in the rights protected under the Good Friday agreement, this is not the case. Can the Minister tell us what consideration was given to compliance with Article 2 of the protocol in the context of this Bill?
Finally, on the position of Northern Ireland within the UK, I accept that significant concerns have been presented to your Lordships. I acknowledge the fears and concerns that underpin this position. However, because the UK voted for Brexit, some accommodation has to be made for the situation resulting from Northern Ireland’s land border with Ireland—a land border that is not readily amenable to customs and other checks. Northern Ireland is in a unique position: it has access to the EU single market yet remains a constituent part of the UK. Properly worked, this could be a significant advantage for all our people in the UK.
Northern Ireland needs stability, a working Assembly, vastly improved public services and many other things. All these could happen if the protocol can be made to work. It is in both the EU’s and the UK’s interests that this should happen. It is in nobody’s interests that the Bill should pass and the consequential years of disruption to UK-EU trade should occur, nor that we should be tied up fighting battles against the EU in the CJEU for years, at a time when we need to restore our national economy and care for all our people.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I begin by noting the level of engagement with the Bill in your Lordships’ House, both in numbers and the weight of years of experience. I was tempted to ask the Library to make a calculation of the total but I decided that that was not a good use of public funds; the level of concern about the Bill is obvious.
That was reflected in the opening speeches from the Front Benches. I agree with almost every word from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington. She clearly identified that the Bill will not solve the problems it purports to address; that it breaks international law, as many noble and noble and learned Lords have said; and that it gives unprecedented powers to Ministers at a time when we have seen a great many Bills go through in your Lordships’ House—and that is just in my three years here—that, it was already being said, gave unprecedented powers to the Executive; now, they are largely law. We have an overweening Executive, unprecedented in history—and what an Executive.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, was notable in bringing out the second point in that list: the breaking of international law. It did not so much bulldoze the Government’s arguments for just cause for their actions as grind them into tiny fragments so that they lay on your Lordships’ House like a layer of sand.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, outlined, this is happening at a critical point in this age of shocks. He highlighted the geopolitical shocks, but I would add the broader climatic and environmental shocks. The UK remains the chair of the COP climate talks. Many are hoping, perhaps against hope, that we might play a significant, positive role in the COP 15 biodiversity talks, which are finally soon to start. The destruction of legal principles that the UK has historically played a big part in creating can only damage not just our place in those talks but the entire progress of those crucial endeavours.
I said that I agreed with almost everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, said; where I would differ is her stress on the reason for not voting today—that magical incantation that we are the unelected House. Your Lordships’ House has already had cause to ponder that lack of election does not mean lack of responsibility and that a significant number of the matters increasingly coming before us could best be labelled, in the purest sense, a conscience vote. Perhaps we should look back to what happened with the internal market Bill when, with the leadership of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, this House took a firm stand.
Many of the practical arguments against this Bill have already been powerfully made, but in part I chose to devote a considerable chunk of my week to this debate because I wanted to demonstrate the wide breadth of concern across this House. Many of the speakers with whom I am agreeing in opposing this Bill are not people with whom I have broad, general agreement across a wide range of issues, but the broad view of the House is obvious, and I agree with it.
I also consulted the Green Party Northern Ireland because I think it is important—crucial indeed—that all the communities in Northern Ireland are represented here in your Lordships’ House. Like so many others, it stressed that the Bill amounts to a near-complete unilateral rewrite of what is supposed to be an internationally binding treaty. Article 4 of the withdrawal treaty explicitly prohibits this type of legislation. More, it is clear that the scale of the provisions in the Bill is not necessary and risks making the problem worse. Very directly, what is proposed will create further difficulties for Northern Ireland businesses. The only businesses that will benefit will be GB firms which ship to Northern Ireland. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, made this point very clear.
The only sensible solution to the clear problems with the current arrangements—which, let us not forget, since the Minister referred in his introduction to the democratic deficit, are subject to a consent vote in the Assembly in 2024—is one that is managed through negotiation and mutual agreement. I note that that has been very strongly stated by the Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group, which represents, among others: the Dairy Council, the Federation of Small Businesses, Hospitality Ulster, the Institute of Directors, the CBI NI, Logistics UK, Manufacturing NI, the NI Grain Trade Association, the NI Meat Exporters Association, the NI Food and Drink Association, the NI Chamber of Commerce and the NI Retail Consortium. We need negotiation and a negotiated settlement, not this Bill.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I cannot pretend to offer any better ideas than anybody else about how to get Stormont going again but I must say that I sense a change of mood now in this whole situation and some welcome changes too in the wider context of the issue which, even if they are medium term or long term, can feed back positively into the immediate. So while the world drifts dangerously towards nuclear war with Russia and the Chinese carry out extending their sphere of influence and subverting Commonwealth members, among other countries, and while we are, as my noble friend Lord Skidelsky said in a remarkable speech last night in this Chamber, in effect in a war situation, I feel we can at least say that here in the British Isles there is one age-old problem that may just possibly be moving forward on the right lines.
Why do I say that? Let me enumerate some positive aspects, while not denying the negative ones. First, we are seeing distinct signs of a change of tone both in Brussels and in London, and of course in Dublin in recent days. The argument about the protocol—the one that says that one side wants changes in the protocol itself and the other side says it agrees to changes in the way it is administered but cannot open the protocol itself—is a classic diplomats’ dilemma. In the right atmosphere it really ought to be resolvable by our proverbially efficient and effective diplomatic service, with ministerial guidance, of course.
And what exactly creates that atmosphere? Let me start with a rather personalised point. We on this side have a colleague, Steve Baker MP, who is very able but also a renowned hardliner on most things. He is now newly holding the job of Minister of State for Northern Ireland—which happens to be exactly the job that I held 50 years ago. He has discovered, as I did when I went there at the height of the violence, that there are legitimate interests all round which he and others like him had not shown sufficient respect to. He said that it was time to rebuild the UK’s relations with Ireland and make sure that the two countries went forward as “closest partners and friends”.
That tells me that the talks that are about to begin will at least start on the right note, and that, despite all the aggro about the Bill, about which we have heard a considerable amount this afternoon, it is all part of a subtle and delicate negotiating positioning which could succeed. We should be very careful—I do urge my friends and other noble Lords—about barging into and upsetting what is going on. That is why, although there is plenty of room for doubts, I shall support the Bill tonight and the vote that goes with it if we have one, and why I hope that we can be spared any further, sadly misinformed if well intentioned, American advice on this matter.
However, it is in the longer-term developments where I feel the best hope is growing and where wise unionists of any shade should face reality and, if they are skilful, take their opportunities from this situation. As I said, the mood in Dublin is clearly changing. Ireland is a rich and talented neighbour nation that we should now look on with the greatest respect and treat as our major partner in the British Isles—which we have not always done in the past, to put it mildly. Before this protocol drama began, there were even signs that the forward thinking in Dublin was to be associated with the Commonwealth. We had several meetings to that effect in Dublin. Of course, that could also be part of the glue of the future as well.
Today, Ireland is far readier to drop the endless battle about old-style reunification by violence and by claim and think about different and far more constructive kinds of unity between separate communities with two capitals on the island. Issues such as energy and transport—for Ireland is one electricity market—bind both parts together, but there are also legitimate separate and lasting identities which keep them apart. With census results showing that Northern Ireland has more Catholics and Protestants for the first time, and with Sinn Féin majorities on both sides of the border, of course the conversation will change, and we will hear more about border polls. That will have to be faced. I myself bear some responsibility for that, having taken the Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Act 1972 through the House of Commons under the late Willie Whitelaw, which of course was reaffirmed in the 1998 Good Friday agreement and which Ted Heath talked about as
“a system of regular plebiscites.”
The latest survey by LucidTalk in August showed that those wanting reunification remain a clear minority. The clever unionist co-operation with Sinn Féin in Belfast can build on that to give Northern Ireland a permanent, stable and prosperous position in the future, as a constitutional part of our United Kingdom but also a good—a very good—neighbour of the Republic.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, like so many others, I oppose this Bill because it contravenes the rule of law. First, there is this flagrant breach of international law and its serious implications for our global reputation. Others have mentioned our invocation of international law when we are denouncing Putin’s conduct in relation to Ukraine. How can we—as I sought to do last night—condemn China for its conduct towards Hong Kong in breach of the Sino-British agreement, an international treaty, when we are breaking an international treaty ourselves? It is this sort of shocking conduct which I am afraid will do great damage to our reputation around the globe for law and our commitment to it.
The Government claim the defence of necessity. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has very effectively demolished that. There has to be grave and imminent peril, and that is not the situation here, as the history of this Bill relates.
In addition to breaching international law, this legislation also puts at risk other legal obligations. I remind the House that the protocol was designed to do more than protect economic interests; it had a number of objectives, one of which was to protect the Good Friday agreement “in all its dimensions”. The House will remember that concerns about human rights and equality have always been at the heart of the conflict in Northern Ireland, and a lot of work has gone into addressing those problems—I do not have to explain what I am referring to. As a result, we have seen the creation of important legal remedies, as well as institutions such as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, both of which have expressed concern about this Bill.
Article 2 of the protocol provides that the UK has continuous obligations regarding human rights and equality in Northern Ireland. It provides that there shall be “no diminution of rights”. No diminution means that the people in Northern Ireland had rights before the UK left the European Union and these cannot be reduced as a result of Brexit. Rights can only stay the same or advance; they cannot regress.
As we know, Article 2 does not stand alone. It is supported by and must be interpreted in the light of other provisions of the protocol and the withdrawal agreement. In particular, there is an obligation on the United Kingdom for what is known as dynamic alignment in certain situations. That means keeping Northern Ireland up to date with developments in European Union law. Let me emphasise: protected rights in the Good Friday agreement that are underpinned by EU law may not be diminished as a result of Brexit and have to keep up with EU advances. Article 2 of the protocol gives that overarching guarantee. However, Clause 14 of this Bill provides that Article 13(3) of the protocol, which is on dynamic alignment, is to be disapplied immediately. Clause 20(2) provides that, in proceedings relating to the protocol, a court or tribunal is not to be
“bound by any principles laid down, or any decisions made … by the European Court”.
I am afraid that that does involve a departure. It is important to understand that this Bill ranges more widely than undermining only the trade and customs provisions of the protocol. The Bill presents a real danger to the protection of human rights provisions because of the powers that it gives to Ministers, which are not confined to trade. I remind the House of the law of unintended consequences. It could have serious implications for the citizens of Northern Ireland and their rights. That is yet another reason why this Bill should be abandoned.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to put the noble Baroness on the spot. However, since she is speaking of rights, does she have any answer made by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, that the protocol itself abridges the democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland as guaranteed by the UN declaration and the European convention in the making of their own laws?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, that the Bill is ill-conceived and does not consider the ways in which the overlapping provisions create real difficulties for the democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak not as an expert on Northern Ireland but simply as a member of the Delegated Powers Committee. I happen to be half Irish, which explains why I am very interested in this Bill, but it is not why I am speaking.
As other noble Lords have said, this is a Bill of exceptional constitutional significance, and yet it is a skeleton Bill that confers on Ministers powers to legislate in the widest possible terms. I cannot improve on the statement in the committee’s report on this Bill that
“The Bill is unprecedented in its cavalier treatment of Parliament, the EU and the Government's international obligations”.
Of course, the most appalling aspect of this is the Government's apparent willingness to breach international law. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, and my noble friend Lord Pannick superbly explained precisely why this Bill is a breach of international law. I would really like the Minister to respond to that point.
This Bill unilaterally disapplies specific areas of the protocol and makes matters far worse by delegating to Ministers powers to disapply further areas of the protocol in UK domestic law. Clause 22(2) is explicit that Ministers can disregard the UK’s international obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol or any other part of the EU withdrawal agreement. The extent of that delegation is quite breathtaking.
As other noble Lords have pointed out, Britain has a proud history as an example to the world of a country which at all times and in all circumstances respects the rule of law. This Bill threatens to undermine that precious reputation. For this reason alone, this House should not proceed to Committee stage on this Bill as it stands.
While recognising that the worst feature of this Bill is its disregard for international law, I will focus my remaining remarks on the extraordinary delegation of powers to Ministers. The fact is that every one of the 19 powers in the Bill allows Ministers to make any provision that they could make under an Act of Parliament, including modifying by regulations the Bill itself once it has become law.
As the Bill stands, Ministers could by regulation impose or increase taxes, create retrospective laws, create serious criminal offences, or amend the Human Rights Act 1998, for example. These are surely extraordinary and unacceptable powers. Whenever a Bill seeks to achieve any of those objectives by delegated powers, the Delegated Powers Committee pulls them up and draws attention to it. However, the wholesale nature of the matters in this Bill is completely unprecedented.
In their memorandum on the Bill, the Government frequently refer to powers being exercised to make “technical and detailed” provision that is best suited to regulations. However, to suggest that powers are just technical or detailed when they unilaterally depart from a major international agreement in a highly controversial area of law is outrageous. I hope the Minister feels able to comment on this aspect of the Government’s memorandum.
I could go on, but I have said sufficient to explain why I will support any Motion which seeks to defer consideration of this Bill to allow time for the Government to continue negotiating with the EU to resolve all remaining issues arising from the protocol. Very relevant here is the fact that Northern Ireland industry representatives are generally satisfied with the protocol if the relatively limited remaining issues can be resolved by negotiation. The southern Ireland Government have also indicated that they regard the outstanding issues as manageable through negotiation. The Minister made clear that the Government’s preferred way forward is through negotiation. For the sake of the reputation of this country and out of respect for the supremacy of Parliament, I plead with the Government to withdraw the Bill.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the Bill. As a former Member of the European Parliament—
Lord Triesman (Lab)
I am sure the noble Baroness will get a go.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, to clarify, there has been a bit of a swap. It is the turn for the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson. We will then hear from the noble Lord, Lord Triesman.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the Bill. As a former Member of the European Parliament and a current member of the UK-EU Parliament Partnership Assembly, I recognise fully the vast amount of work that the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament—let alone those in Belfast, Dublin, Westminster and Whitehall—have put in to produce the protocol as it stands originally. I recognise the dismay at any alteration, which was fully expressed, faithfully received and partially explored in the first recent plenary of the newly created UK-EU Parliament Partnership Assembly, itself a satisfactory Brexit creation.
Yet despite these important views, I believe strongly that today’s Bill is not just important but in fact essential, and I question why, when by careful negotiation we enabled a workable, indeed, a sound solution for Gibraltar, we failed so profoundly to care for the UK citizens of Northern Ireland. This was indeed a political failure and one of such profundity that it demands the immediate and urgent reparation that today’s Bill offers.
I worked successfully on many pieces of legislation in Brussels and Strasbourg with our Irish parliamentary colleagues. I know of the deep and continuing relationship that our two nations enjoy. I was in Dublin, by coincidence, when the Anglo Irish Bank collapsed. I saw at once the immediate action of the Bank of England to save the currency. I saw too the magnificent way in which successive Irish Governments handled the EC structural funds. Indeed, I applaud the leading role that Ireland has played in demonstrating to many other member states how structural funds can be correctly and properly used, with benefits for their whole populations.
Yet despite these splendid things and powerful, historical ties, I know too that Ireland cannot afford to embrace Northern Ireland—I believe that it is now €1.2 billion—and that Northern Ireland is and will remain an integral part of the UK. I say that as one who has three great-grandfathers who, in both Houses, voted against the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland in an attempt to keep Ireland all together in 1869. Our respect for Northern Ireland is complete, but in the haste of Brexit we agreed a wrong piece of legislation with major, negative results for a part of the United Kingdom.
Today’s Bill, unamended by the other place, should go straight through in your Lordships’ House as well. Indeed, we will recall that Lord Salisbury declared more or less 150 years ago in 1869 that decisions made in the Commons are based on the will of the country and that they should not be overturned in the House of Lords. I support that view, which is exactly what my noble friend Lord Forsyth said and is perhaps the argument against my noble friend Lord Cormack.
Many of us recall the awfulness of the civil war. Brighton was just the tip of the continually erupting volcano, which took life, limb, safety and happiness from so many before the blessed Good Friday agreement. We should not look back but go forward. I remind Ministers that continuous referral to Parliament for the widest of powers that they are granted in this Bill will restore confidence in the EU that we here serve the people and that, as a Parliament, we are omnicompetent and committed entirely to turning back a wrong step if we take it. I support the Bill unhesitatingly.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Pannick, for providing us with an unanswerable case that this is a breach of international law. Many of us will want no part in a breach of international law. It is an unmoveable bedrock of what we do.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, provided a serious agenda for what can and should take place in the negotiations, which I also hope will be successful. But I have tried to reflect—particularly as I thought I would be following the noble Lord, Lord Frost—on what negotiators from the Foreign Office do when they set about the business of negotiating. One of the first things you do is think about what tools are available to you. For the most part, you cannot send a gunboat or threaten people with God-alone-knows-what. You have to go and argue on the basis of pragmatism, honesty and the expectation that you will keep your word and try to find something that is a suitable balance.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said that we should not be obsessed with history. One of the first things that happens in any negotiation is that you think about what has gone before, because if you have not understood that you have a pitiful chance of analysing what might bring the contending parties together. He was advocating negotiations between four year-olds who go into a room and shout at each other.
My noble friend Lord Murphy made the absolutely right point that all such negotiations tend to end in a compromise, which is why I hope the next negotiations will be successful. Revisiting all the issues will unquestionably take time; it was not an accident that they took time in the last iteration. They may involve the same parties, who may make it difficult, and they will unquestionably end in another compromise, because that is what happens in any negotiation. If you go in with the same tools—good faith, pragmatism and, critically, your honesty, your word being your greatest and maybe your only real asset, and recognising that the rule of law is fundamental—then you have some chance of producing a new agreement and a new compromise, and compromise is what it is.
The rule of law is important for all of us in another way. We are a country that depends on inward investment, which is attracted because people believe that we have a satisfactory rule of law. That is not on the big occasions but on every occasion when you want things to be litigated by honest and trustworthy people.
I agree with much of what has been said, not least by my noble friend Lady Chapman about the subsections, because those are also critical. However, I conclude with a point that I know will cause offence, but I am from north Tottenham and I do not mind trying to say things as I see them. It is astonishing that the Minister should have argued that it is the breakdown of the arrangements in the Parliament of Northern Ireland, in the power-sharing agreement, that has produced the peril that we apparently now face. Who is refusing to take part in power-sharing in Northern Ireland? It is arguably the most extreme right-wing party anywhere in the United Kingdom, the DUP—members of that party will not like it, but I am afraid that is my view of who and what they are. They have decided that they will not take part and that the efforts that could be made across health, education and other areas should not proceed. That is a dreadful and scandalous thing to do. I say that straightforwardly. I would never have contemplated doing anything like it.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, has been welcomed back, and I welcome him—up to a point. That point is this. He is a Foreign Office Minister, and he will go out and negotiate again in the wider world. People will ask the question, as they always should of all of us: is his word to be respected? Is he capable of going back on fundamental promises that have been made? I appeal to him, because I like him, not to lose his reputation recklessly, because he is in danger of doing so.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, on 9 November 2019, Boris Johnson stated categorically about his oven-ready EU deal and the protocol:
“There will be no forms, no checks … You will have unfettered access.”
I was covering the Northern Ireland brief for these Benches at that time and I was astonished. I knew that the protocol meant that checks would be needed, and I knew that the Government and the Prime Minister knew. I immediately checked the government website and there it was in black and white: information as to what customs and excise rules would apply, where to find online forms from HMRC, and advice as to whether the extra processing would require the appointment of agents or recruitment of extra staff. That was on that same day that Boris Johnson made that assertion.
It was starkly clear that “Get Brexit Done” was a great electoral slogan for a weary electorate, but at its heart it was, and is, a deliberate deception. Yes, we are no longer a member of the EU, but we are trapped in no man’s land. It was always clear that the border arrangements guaranteed by the Good Friday agreement would be prejudiced by Brexit. Indeed, the Good Friday agreement was predicated on continued UK membership of the EU.
Within the EU, for most practical purposes, the island of Ireland was united with free trade, joint services and an open border. The protocol secures the open border by requiring Northern Ireland to operate within the rules of the EU but, inevitably, with the rest of the UK operating outside the EU, goods travelling between GB and Northern Ireland need to be contained within Northern Ireland and the UK, or to be identified as moving into the EU. This inevitably requires checks. The issue cannot therefore be unfettered access but, through negotiation and a combination of trust and technology, to allow movement and trade with the minimum of cost and bureaucracy.
It appears that some of the ideas behind this Bill point in that direction, but the mood music of hostility and belligerence of recent years has left little room. Like others, I welcome the change of tone in recent days, but if it is just a softening-up for a deal without substantive movement, I doubt it will succeed.
It has been suggested that Brexit was a simple solution by simple people to address a complex problem. In a post-pandemic economy, with soaring inflation and the costs of a European war, to choose to erect significant trade barriers with our principal local market is a self-inflicted harm. Now is surely the time for a little humility from those who led us down this route.
I accept that, currently, there is little appetite to reverse Brexit, although the advantages are minimal and the downside is huge. But there is an expectation of constructive, non-confrontational engagement with our friends and allies—because that is what they are—in the EU to reduce friction, ease trade in goods and services and rebuild trust. The Brexit vote was narrow. Nearly half of those who voted wanted continued membership of the EU. They are surely entitled to expect constructive and friendly relations and practical engagement, especially in Northern Ireland and Scotland where clear majorities voted to remain. This should lead to full participation in Horizon and revisiting Erasmus, which Turing does not come close to in money or practice. It must ensure arrangements to allow for as free access as possible for our creative industries and professional services. This will fall short of the arrangement we enjoyed within the EU, but surely can be better than the current impasse.
We have just witnessed the SNP conference in my home city of Aberdeen. Just as those who campaigned to leave the EU decried everything about the EU and Europe as a justification for their argument, so the SNP loses no opportunity to demonise everything British. Only by leaving the UK, it claims, can Scotland flourish—while being in complete denial of its abysmal failure in every single aspect of its governance of Scotland.
It is abundantly clear that Brexiteers had no clue as to how to move the UK to a better future outside the EU. This is confirmed by the report of our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It looks like the biggest abuse of executive power since the UK became a constitutional monarchy. The Government want sweeping powers without any indication of how they would use them. So, either they have a comprehensive plan which they do not wish Parliament to see, delete, debate or amend, or they have not the slightest idea of what they are doing—or probably both. That should be a clear warning that to trust Scotland’s destiny to the independence-obsessed and incompetent SNP would be an existential risk. But this Bill will do nothing for the UK’s economy, the unity of the United Kingdom or our standing in the world, and it should be abandoned.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I find the Bill rather shocking, and I fear that we have to stand up and be counted and send it back to the other place. I find it shocking in four distinct ways. First, there is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howard. The protocol is an integral part of the withdrawal treaty. I share a lot of the distaste that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, expressed for the protocol. I think that the democratic deficit point is real. But it is an integral part of a treaty that the noble Lord’s Prime Minister negotiated and signed, which was commended to this House and the other House and which we voted for and ratified—and this country does not break treaties it signs: pacta sunt servanda. It has been demonstrated by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Howard, that the doctrine of necessity simply does not apply in this case. Ours is an honourable country, which means that we cannot, in my view, approve the Bill.
Secondly, it is a power grab by the Executive. This point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. It is astonishing to see our Delegated Powers Committee pointing out that the power grab is
“unprecedented in its cavalier treatment of Parliament”.
As the noble Baroness said, the Bill allows Ministers to do by regulation anything that normally could be done by an Act of Parliament, including amending provisions that have been enacted. That is autocracy. That is not a parliamentary system.
Thirdly, it is an act of self-harm. The withdrawal treaty is the foundation on which the trade and co-operation treaty is built. I do not see how the 27 could continue to allow us the TCA’s duty-free access to their market if we had broken our word and torn up the foundation treaty. I applaud the Prime Minister’s rapprochement with President Macron in Prague, but the Bill would destroy any chance of building grown-up relationships with our neighbours in continental Europe. The EU has held off so far, but it would have to say “See you in court” and it would have to take retaliatory measures—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts.
Fourthly, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, argued that having the Bill’s provisions on the statute book would strengthen our hand in the current negotiations with the EU—and I am very glad that the negotiations have at last restarted. It is argued that having the gun on the table will concentrate EU minds. I am afraid there are two fatal flaws in that argument. First, the EU would resent and resist being blackmailed. It would have to, if only for reasons of precedent. Secondly, the gun is at our head. If it goes off, it is we who suffer.
What about Northern Ireland? This Bill would seriously damage Northern Ireland if our Government were to use the powers it confers on them. Northern Ireland would be out of the single market and all-Ireland links would be broken. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said, business in Northern Ireland really wants an end to the current uncertainty. That is the most important thing for business in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland does not want the end of the protocol. Northern Ireland wants the end of uncertainty.
So each of these four facts seems to me to be sufficient to require us to ask the other place to think again. Cumulatively, the case is overwhelming. We have to stand up and be counted.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, as the Minister indicated earlier, we are debating this Bill against a backdrop of political instability in Northern Ireland, due in no small part to the European Union’s intransigence over the Northern Ireland protocol and, regrettably, an inability, so far, to find a workable solution to the issue. Many in this House will remember opposition to the protocol, and from the very beginning we said it would be bad for Northern Ireland, simply would not work and would be a direct threat to the long-term political and economic stability of Northern Ireland.
The Northern Ireland protocol is not only an economic barrier in terms of trade in parts of this sovereign nation; it is a barrier to consensus and devolved government in Northern Ireland. As a party, we are committed devolutionists and I assure the House that we want to see the Stormont institutions up and running. The sooner this issue is dealt with, the sooner an Executive can get back and the Assembly can function properly once more.
The first priority of your Lordships’ House and the other House, and of any United Kingdom Government, must be the protection and integrity of this United Kingdom and its people. The Bill before the House offers a framework to deal with the real problems that the protocol has created in Northern Ireland for some time. If enacted, the Bill has the potential to provide a solution that will restore the rights of the people of Northern Ireland, as British citizens, to trade freely with the rest of this nation under Article 6 of the Act of Union.
The Bill before us is also essential to protect the integrity of the United Kingdom market and the constitutional integrity of this nation. Such uncertainty and disruption are unnecessary. They are problematic in the long term and potentially bring into question the very future of the institutions that so many claim they understand, respect and hold dear.
In this Bill, I believe, we have a workable solution available to us to address the serious issues now. Fundamentally, the Bill is about addressing the consensus that has created political instability in Northern Ireland. To dismiss the Bill before your Lordships’ House or to change it drastically would be to dismiss the consensus that formed the foundations for a durable Government in Northern Ireland. By supporting the Bill, we will go some way to ensuring that Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom is finally restored. We will also go some way to protecting the delicate politics of consensus in Northern Ireland.
I believe that the Bill is the only route to restoring constitutional balance as well as eliminating the trade barriers created by the protocol, and the only path to stable and sustainable government in Northern Ireland. Much of what will happen in the coming period in Northern Ireland will be shaped by the attitudes and decisions taken by this House and the other place. We are supporting the Bill.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, by far the most important reason for opposing this Bill is the fact that it is a clear breach of international law and gives Ministers powers to free themselves from parliamentary supervision in future, on an unprecedented scale. This has already been eloquently and authoritatively set out by many speakers, so I do not propose to dwell on it. I agree entirely with everything that everybody from my noble friend Lord Cormack onwards has said on that subject, and I think it would be a great blow if we were to pass legislation of this kind.
I thought in the 1990s and the 2000s—that more optimistic time—that one of the greatest things happening across the globe was the development of a rules-based international order, which gave us all great hope that we should have a more peaceful future. I never imagined that the United Kingdom would contemplate defying the rule of law—moving away from the basis of international order in a treaty with its closest allies and friends—in the way now being contemplated, but there we are. As I said, many Members of this House have eloquently set out that case, and I am sure many Members of the Government are secretly, privately, very worried about their being party to this.
Moving on to the actual politics of it, remember how we got here. The policy now being put forward is not that of a Conservative Government, unless the new Government are a total reversal of their predecessor. Boris Johnson was very proud of the agreement he reached after it was negotiated by the noble Lord, Lord Frost. There were long negotiations and no doubt about what had been negotiated. They had found a solution to the Irish problem caused by the Good Friday agreement and the fact that you cannot safely have controls on the border—something rightly sacrosanct to both the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom Government. They came up with this marvellous remedy that Northern Ireland would remain in the single market and the customs barriers that would inevitably follow from our withdrawal would be, first, along the English Channel between Dover and the continent, and then down the Irish Sea, with the Northern Irish having the advantage to many parts of its economy of being able to remain in the single market.
That was the policy; it should be the policy still. The part that changed was changed by the policy of the Democratic Unionists. They are the authors of this Bill, as already very eloquently expressed in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and his colleagues. They demanded the pistol. Theirs is the finger on the trigger because they used it as the basis for not joining a power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland, causing the crisis. Boris Johnson immediately started changing his position once this happened. Within a week or two, he was making statements about what he had just signed—which were plainly incompatible with the policy contained in what he had just signed. From then on, so long as the Democratic Unionists would not join the power-sharing Executive, we have gone on and on until the stage we have reached now.
I do not doubt the Democratic Unionists’ sincerity on the symbolism of a customs border down the Irish Sea; they have always been consistent. But I think there is another reason behind the DUP’s position: the party has just done badly in Ulster elections and is using the Northern Ireland protocol as its explanation, as it would say—excuse, I would say—for not joining a Northern Irish Executive under Sinn Féin leadership. Sinn Féin should be entitled to the First Minister’s position. They are all nodding away at me. They still hold that pistol and the Government—
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way since he has made a direct accusation. I reassure him and the House that the Democratic Unionist Party would have no difficulty in re-entering the Executive with a Sinn Féin First Minister. We do not like that outcome but we will do that if the protocol is sorted out, so let us not go down a blind alley or a false argument as far as that is concerned.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
I am extremely reassured to hear that but it is still “if the protocol is sorted out”. Who will decide whether the protocol is going to be sorted out? Who will determine the negotiating position of British Ministers in their discussions with the European Union? It will be the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and his Democratic Unionist colleagues. The British Government will not—and, given the policy now, cannot—sign up to anything unless the Democratic Unionists agree because they will not achieve their aim of getting back to power-sharing. This is an impossible position.
We should have had a softer Brexit, but the hard Brexiteers took over. We should have stayed at least in the customs union, but that is now water under the bridge. The fact that we have come out is causing difficulties at Dover as much as it is in Belfast; it is causing damage to the United Kingdom economy just as it is to sections of the Northern Ireland economy—although some are lucky enough still to be in the single market and benefit from that. The only way out, as everybody has said, is sensible negotiations, but negotiations on the British Government’s own terms. They should get the DUP onside if they can, but we cannot allow the whole thing to be dictated by the sincere opinions of the Democratic Unionist Party, as it has been so far to get us to this position.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I support the Bill. I speak as a remain voter, a strong supporter of the Good Friday agreement—I supported it when it was not quite so fashionable as it seems to have become—and a civil rights marcher.
However, I support the Bill and I shall explain my first reason. There is an international treaty, and under Article 1, paragraph 5 of that treaty, the Good Friday agreement, which is lodged at the United Nations, a sovereign Government have the responsibility to deal with the alienation of one or other community. A few weeks ago, because of the effect on the aspirations of the nationalist community, we passed the Irish language Bill in this House in the spirit of that international treaty. The Bill today is designed to reach out to the unionist community, which is alienated on the subject of the protocol, and is designed to offer some comfort.
Mode of address is everything in politics; it is very important to say that. I have never felt more Irish than when listening to this debate today. The Irish expression “The day that’s in it” came to mind; to give your Lordships the English translation, “Timing is everything in politics”. There is talk of suspending the Bill for six months. Obviously, I listen more to the Irish media than other Members of this House, but when the Taoiseach says the negotiation now going on is in good faith and the Foreign Minister says the Bill is not an issue causing blockage, the only effect will be to disrupt the attempt to mollify the alienation of the unionist community on this issue, but we are committed under an international agreement to act just as we did with the Irish language Act a few weeks ago. That would be the only effect of a delay. These negotiations are well ahead. It might conceivably have been argued that the negotiations would be affected in a bad way, but there is absolutely no such effect. It is important to say that.
The noble Lord, Lord Howard, raised the issue of Article 16. The truth is that at this moment—again, “The day that’s in it”—it would be ridiculous. These negotiations were started at various times. Eminent international lawyers have said the Government’s approach needs Article 16. The Government’s approach is basically right to protect the Good Friday agreement, but you have to explore all routes, and Article 16 may yet return, but at this moment it would be absurd. It would cause irritation in Dublin. Timing is everything in politics, if I may say so.
I turn to illegality: pacta sunt servanda. There is more than one treaty involved. I have already tried to explain this. In fact, there are three international treaties, including the 2017 joint agreement—which, by the way, talks about unfettered access, which apparently we are not allowed to expect but is in that international agreement.
The point about the 2017 agreement, as the Irish lead official Rory Montgomery has said, is that basically the Irish Government were ceded by the British Government sole control of the Good Friday agreement. It is a two-sided agreement; not only that, but as a sovereign Government we have more responsibilities than the Irish Government. That set the template for the difficulties in all the subsequent agreements that we are now trying to resolve. It is how we got into this place and we are now trying to sort it out. It is messy, but the negotiations are now in play. The Bill was launched in June and passed in the House of Commons, and the EU has not said, “Oh my God, this is so brutal, we can’t talk”. I am not saying we are talking because of the Bill—although I know plenty of people who believe that—but I am certain that you cannot argue that the Bill is preventing this negotiation. That is how it is going to be resolved.
In conclusion, I want to say a word about international agreements. On 12 March 2019 the Brexit Secretary—with, he said, the sanction of the Attorney-General—said the Good Friday agreement was the prior agreement. In the event of subsequent agreements being in conflict with that agreement, the UK reserved the right to resile, under the Vienna convention, from the Good Friday agreement. That may be bad law, but it was that Attorney-General in the May Government. Nobody actually knows what international law is on this, to be absolutely honest; I do not want to be too brutal about it, but nobody does know. I am simply saying that the argument in play now is exactly the original argument. For some time now, three years or more, the UK Government have been saying, “We have two treaties to work with here and the Good Friday agreement is important to us”. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Jay, that the east-west dimension of that agreement is not working under the protocol and therefore we have a problem. So the UK Government’s position is, at least in that limited sense, a consistent argument.
As I keep repeating, under that protocol the UK Government have special responsibilities, which the Irish Government do not, to address the alienation of communities. I could accept the argument that some of the Bill is a bit cack-handed or not to everybody’s taste, but the fact that the Government are making a separate, desperate effort to address the alienation of one community is entirely within the logic of their international obligations. It must be understood that the treaty is in the United Nations and has no other possible meaning.
I have a few words for those in the Democratic Unionist Party. I understand that they feel that a lot of civilised opinion among the commentariat in Northern Ireland is willing them to fail, and I totally accept the good-faith remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, today. For example, in the few days before the Bill was introduced, the commentariat said it was never going to happen—but nobody then apologised in the collective wisdom of Northern Ireland. I understand the irritation with all that, but it is the case that on 27 June the DUP explicitly stated in the House that in the event that the Bill passed the Commons on its Second Reading, there would be moves towards the return of devolution. No such moves have happened. This is the vulnerability, and it is why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, is able to raise the issue of good faith. Ultimately, I accept that good faith—but no such move has happened.
The consequence is that we are likely to be moving towards an agreement between the EU and this country, and those in the DUP will be excluded from the terms of it. They will just be the passive recipients of whatever comes down the line and they will lose the place that they rightly hold—Northern Ireland, by the way, is a co-premiership—under the recent election results in the institutions of Stormont. It is time to think again about moving. I know there are all kinds of issues, but it is time to think again about moving because the centrist vision that their leader is now putting forward cannot be achieved if there is a bitter and resentful election, which is extremely likely to follow if we do not move quickly.
Lord Lilley (Con)
It is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bew, who has made the important point—strangely ignored by all the lawyers who have spoken so far—that we are subject to conflicting international agreements that cannot be reconciled without breaking, in part, some of them.
We all agree that there should be no infrastructure or checks at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Why? Not just because they would disrupt trade but because they would be a provocation to republicans and would probably be blown up, threatening the whole peace process. By the same token, we should all agree that there should be no border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It disrupts a far larger volume of trade and, as we have seen, it is provocative to unionists and is gravely undermining the Belfast agreement. As it happens, Article 6.2 of the protocol commits both parties to avoid infrastructure at the ports and airports of Northern Ireland to the extent possible—but the EU ignored that and actually invoked legal procedures to require the introduction and building of checkpoints at Northern Ireland ports.
The EU’s only legitimate interest in the protocol is to protect its internal market. At present, the threat to its market is imaginary, and in the future any threat would only come from third-country goods which incur a lower tariff to enter the UK than the EU tariff, from goods, if any, which are subject to lower standards in the UK market than are required under EU law, and a minority of those two groups of goods which are actually destined for the Republic. If this Bill provides an equal, or possibly greater, protection against these pretty minor threats, the EU has no pragmatic reason to insist on retaining the complex procedures envisaged under the protocol. Moreover, under Article 24 of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement, to which all EU states adhere,
“where two or more alternative measures are reasonably available for fulfilling the policy objective”,
the least trade restrictive measure must be taken—an obligation which the EU is in fragrant breach of.
But some in the EU have an illegitimate reason for hanging on to the protocol, which is to make sure that Britain suffers for Brexit. That raises the question: can we lawfully, unilaterally, replace the Northern Ireland protocol by other measures which meet the EU’s legitimate objectives, avoid a hard border and protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement? I believe we can do so.
First, the sole justification for the protocol was to uphold the Belfast agreement. As the former Lord Chancellor pointed out, the very first article of the protocol says:
“This Protocol is without prejudice to the provisions of the 1998 Agreement”.
So, as he said, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement takes precedence over the protocol. The UK, as guarantor of the Belfast agreement, has not just a right but a duty to ensure that, where the protocol threatens the Good Friday agreement, it is changed—preferably by agreement, but if not, otherwise—as envisaged in Article 13 of the protocol.
Secondly, the protocol is intrinsically temporary; the EU itself said so. It said that no permanent agreement with a member state can be reached under Article 50 —only temporary and transitional relationships. That is why we had to leave first before we could negotiate the permanent trade and co-operation agreement. The then Solicitor-General told Parliament:
“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.]
So, he went on, if someone were to mount a challenge to the protocol on the basis that the EU said that Article 50 is not a sound basis for a permanent agreement,
“I tell you frankly, Mr Speaker, they are likely to win”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/18; col. 555.]
That was pretty emphatic advice from a lawyer. If the EU now repudiate that doctrine, then the protocol was negotiated in bad faith, which itself is grounds for us to replace it.
The reason the protocol is undermining the Belfast agreement is that it lacks the consent of the unionist community, who see it as undermining the Act of Union itself. Indeed, the court in Northern Ireland has ruled that the protocol “subjugates” the Act of Union.
What should a state do if it finds that its obligations under one treaty conflict with those under another treaty or with its own constitutional law? Let me answer that question in the words of the European Court of Justice in the Kadi case. The court affirmed that,
“although the Court takes great care to respect the obligations that are incumbent on the Community by virtue of international law, it seeks, first and foremost, to preserve the constitutional framework … it would be wrong to conclude that, once the Community is bound by a rule of international law, the Community Courts must bow to that rule with complete acquiescence and apply it unconditionally”—
what is right for the EU is surely right for the UK too.
In short, we have a right and a duty to replace this protocol—preferably by agreement; if not, unilaterally—under EU law because it is temporary, under the EU’s own doctrine that international obligations must be subordinated to supreme constitutional laws by the Act of Union, under the protocol itself which says that the Belfast agreement takes precedence over the protocol, and under the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement, of which the EU is in breach. So I support this Bill.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I am a simple soul, and the argument put forward by the last few very eminent speakers is not one which persuades me. The reason that persuades me that this is a bad Bill which should never become law is that it will not only allow Ministers excessive powers—which have not yet been defended by anyone so far, so I look forward to what the Minister has to say about that—but also put us at serious risk of breaking the rule of law. And it is that, as a simple lawyer a long way back, that concerns me, and I have not heard an argument yet that says that that is a wrong argument.
Of course the other parts of the Bill are astonishing—the Henry VIII powers I have mentioned and the potential effects on human rights too—but, as far as the rule of law is concerned, I remind the House that this is the second time in less than six months that the Government have sought such powers. Noble Lords will remember perhaps how this House resisted on a number of occasions earlier this year that part of the Nationality and Borders Bill which also represented a breach of our obligations under the very well-established refugee convention to which we have always been signatories, and this too was an attack on the rule of law. At length, the Government got their way and the offending clause stayed in the Bill, which is now—shamefully, I would argue—an Act of Parliament. But as my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti said, as she moved for the last time her amendment, if the House of Lords does not defend the rule of law, what are we for? I think that issue arises again today.
And now we have been asked to do it again. The Government claim necessity in law, and the arguments that we have already heard in this debate have shattered that proposition in this particular case. Has there been enough thought, or any thought, by the Government of the difficulty to the reputation of our country and what it stands for, and has done for a long, long time? Does it matter to the Government that other countries will already be reluctant to take our word on anything if we can so callously breach obligations? Why should they listen to a word that we say?
Of course, we all hope for an agreement in the current negotiations, but to me it is essential that we must be firm: we must as a House tell His Majesty’s Government that this Bill is unacceptable. I want to quote—and I have warned him that I am going to—from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who said on the occasion that I was just referring to, when that last Bill became an Act of Parliament:
“There are not many issues that it is worth going to the stake for, but surely the rule of law is one.”—[Official Report, 27/4/22; col. 299.]
Sometimes we just have to say no.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, yesterday much of the debate in this Chamber concerned the havoc in the markets caused by the Government’s mini-Budget. Confidence in the UK’s financial stability has been badly shaken. The cost is huge for ordinary people in this country with mortgages, and the rest of us will all be paying. But this morning the rout continued: the Bank of England had to wade in again to try and restore a degree of confidence.
Imagine how that loss of confidence in the UK would be compounded if we were to unilaterally tear up an international treaty. Now, it may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, suggests, that international law is not always very clear, but when the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, all see things from the same point of view, I tend to think that they might be right. If this Government so clearly state that the UK’s word is no longer its bond, then what does it mean for the value of our bonds, which are already being trashed?
There is so much to detest about the Bill, not just its contempt for international law. This afternoon, we have heard from so many Members about why it is at risk of breaching international law and is about to breach so many of the rights of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said that the Bill was about restoring democracy but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, pointed out, the Bill gives so much power to the Executive and shows such little respect for Parliament that it is an insult to democracy. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, pointed out that it is seen as pushing Henry VIII powers further than they have ever been pushed before.
The protocol is not perfect but the threat to impoverish the UK and Ireland, north and south, that we would sustain if we went ahead with the Bill would be appalling. Trade between these countries has flourished post pandemic. For the first seven months of 2022, imports of goods from Northern Ireland to Ireland are actually running 93% higher than in 2019. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, pointed out, what Northern Ireland has is the possibility of the best of both worlds. If we can get a negotiated solution to the problems with the protocol, Northern Ireland is the winner.
The Bill not only jeopardises that but contains provisions which are simply not workable. The proposed dual regulation route for regulated goods is deemed a killer by those in agribusiness, in particular; they simply could not cope. As the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, dual regulation would decimate the Northern Ireland dairy industry. According to the British Irish Chamber of Commerce, the bureaucracy involved would be increased to unmanageable levels.
It is really encouraging that technical negotiations have resumed between the EU and the UK; it is in the interests of both to sort this out. That should be possible; the EU already has veterinary agreements, for instance, with New Zealand and Switzerland. Why not the UK? That would enable Northern Ireland to continue trading without the onerous bureaucracy. The Specialised Committee on the Protocol is already mandated to address any issues with implementing the protocol. If its powers were strengthened, it would be able to respond effectively to the problems perceived by business and provide speedy solutions to smooth cross-border trade, while showing respect for the EU single market.
This may look like a fudge, but fudge is the only way to solve what was always the core problem of Brexit: how to have a border without a border—impossible, so fudge it. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, whose name is on the speakers’ list, is not here this afternoon. I was hoping he would be able to tell us why he supports the Bill when it was only on Christmas Eve 2020 that he tweeted:
“I’m very pleased and proud to have led a great UK team to secure today’s excellent deal with the EU.”
It was not a great deal but, having agreed to it, it is now incumbent upon our Government to make the best of it and not further damage our international reputation.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I was really fascinated when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Bew, asserting that no one really understands international law. I noticed that there was no challenge when he said that. The noble Lord is someone for whom I have a high regard and high respect. He does not always agree with me and I certainly do not always agree with him, but that does not diminish my respect for him in any way.
When this Bill was in another place, the right honourable Hilary Benn MP said:
“Let us not forget that Northern Ireland is in a unique and favourable position compared with my constituents, precisely because it has access to both the market of the United Kingdom and the market of the European Union”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/7/21; col. 1014.]
The more I have thought about his comment, the more troubled I have become, and the more I wonder whether Mr Benn and those making similar assertions have really thought through the full implication of their position. I do not accept for one moment that the protocol is an economic benefit—in a five-minute speech, it will not be possible to go through all that—but to humour Mr Benn, let us assume for a moment that he is right.
What is the effect of encouraging the people of Northern Ireland to be reconciled to sacrificing their vote as it relates to 300 areas of the lawmaking to which they are subject in return for economic gain? The dignity of our politics is based on the fact that people are ends in themselves, not means to an end. The idea that the guarantee of our equal value—our equal citizenship—can be appropriately traded to any degree as a means of becoming rich is about the most disturbing thing I have ever encountered in all my political life, which now extends to about 50 years. It amounts to encouraging us to sell our political souls for economic gain. That we in this Parliament should be brought so low when we regard our historic commitment to political freedom and democracy is, to say the very least, shameful.
I could quote any number of our great political thinkers to illustrate this point but lest anyone suggest I am too parochial, the importance of keeping friendly with France has already been mentioned here today. I will thus quote a French person by the name of Montesquieu, whose celebrated The Spirit of the Laws AJ Carlyle summarised thus: that in a free state every man and woman who is considered to have a free spirit should be governed by himself, or herself, and therefore the people as a body should have the legislative power but as this is impracticable, the people must act through their representatives, chosen by local election.
The right to participate in your Government, rather than being a passive recipient, is of course also provided for by international law—whoever understands that. The right to political participation can be found in provisions such as Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:
“Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his”
or her
“country, directly or through freely chosen representatives … Everyone has the right of equal access to public service”
in their country. The people of Northern Ireland have lost their ability to take part in the government of their country in relation to some 300 areas of law. They can no longer stand for election to become legislators and make laws in these areas or elect a legislator to represent them in this task because, under the Brexit arrangements, these laws are now made for Northern Ireland by the EU—a polity of which it is not a part and in whose Parliament it consequently has no representation whatever.
In Northern Ireland, of course, these points are greatly compounded by the additional protections of the Good Friday or Belfast agreement, which sets out
“the right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.
This additional protection for the integrity of the vote in Northern Ireland reflects our troubled history, where sadly in the past some have been persuaded to trade the ballot box for the bomb, and the need to ensure that the value of democratic engagement is never demeaned or eroded.
Furthermore, the hands of the UK Government are prevented from acquiescing with the erosion of the value of the vote by reallocating the making of their laws in some 300 areas to a polity of which it is not a part and in which it has no representation at all, courtesy 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 meaning is clear. There can be no diminution of the rights of people in Northern Ireland to pursue democratically national and political aspirations from the 1998 level that the Good Friday agreement protects. Yet every time legislation is placed on Northern Ireland by the EU legislature, in which Northern Ireland is not represented, the Good Friday agreement is violated. That surely should concern us all, not least those who are strong advocates for the Good Friday agreement.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to express my opposition to the Bill. I am opposed to it both in principle and in detail. Because other noble Lords have developed the arguments, I will confine myself to a summary of my views.
First, I believe that the Bill is a serious breach of our treaty obligations. It will do great damage to our international reputation and thus to our interests. I do not believe that the doctrine of necessity has any application to the present situation. The reasons were eloquently expressed by my noble friend Lord Howard and, incidentally, by Mrs Theresa May at Second Reading in the House of Commons. It should therefore be noted that two former leaders of my party are against the Bill.
We are dealing with treaty obligations entered into very recently, in a treaty that, as most people—other than the then Prime Minister, apparently—correctly understood, created restrictions on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Such restrictions are the direct consequence of the hard Brexit favoured by present Ministers. To renounce obligations voluntarily undertaken, in full knowledge of their significance, is a serious breach of faith and an act unworthy of this country. A reputation for probity, once lost, is very hard to regain.
Secondly, the Bill confers on Ministers numerous powers to do by secondary legislation what should be done by primary legislation. It enables Ministers to abrogate most of the most important articles of the protocol without any effective parliamentary process. All the regulations will be unamendable, and most will be subject only to the negative procedure. The House should perhaps note that our Delegated Powers Committee recommended that 12 clauses or subsections should be removed from the Bill.
Thirdly, the Bill defies the majority opinion in Northern Ireland. Most Assembly Members, and the public, if the polls are correct, favour the retention of the protocol, albeit modified. The DUP should realise that a failure to compromise on its part will imperil political stability in Northern Ireland and damage the wider interests of the United Kingdom. For that, it will be directly responsible—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Triesman. Being part of the union involves obligations as well as rights. Moreover, the House should note, from the speech of Sir Jeffrey Donaldson at Second Reading, that enactment of the Bill will not by itself lead to the restoration of the local institutions.
Fourthly, the passage of the Bill could trigger some form of trade war with the European Union, our biggest, nearest and most important partner. In the context of the present political and economic difficulties, this would be an act of extraordinary folly.
Fifthly, I treat with the greatest caution the judgment and underlying views of the leading advocates of the Bill. Most of them either were advocates of Brexit or have since advocated an exceptionally hard form of Brexit. These policies have done, are doing and will continue to do immense damage to this country’s interests.
So the way forward lies in negotiation, to seek a consensual outcome to the difficulties that exist. We must work with, not against, our neighbours in Europe. The present mood music is modestly encouraging, but a willingness to compromise on the part of the European Union is unlikely to survive the enactment of the Bill. If a consensual outcome proves impossible, the provisions of Article 16 could and should be triggered. Although that would be undesirable—I agree with my noble friend Lord Howard—it is at least compatible with our treaty obligations. Those in summary are my views. I cannot and will not support the Bill.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. Our spirits, battered by the dreadful war in Ukraine, were lifted last week on learning that meaningful technical talks have finally resumed on efforts to resolve the dispute between the Government and the EU on the protocol. Of course, we all wish them well. None of us here is saying that the present situation with customs and the movement of goods between GB and Northern Ireland is not a problem on the ground for many Northern Ireland businesses and for even more Northern Ireland consumers. In that spirit, thanks must go to the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Morrow, for organising the briefing on this with Peter Summerton today.
However, what many of us are saying is that the Bill is a barely legal, dangerous decoy in the efforts to find a solution to those problems. It also puts in jeopardy the Good Friday agreement. Should the Bill ever become law, it would unilaterally disapply provisions of the agreed Northern Ireland protocol in domestic law. It would give Ministers extraordinary delegated powers to change whichever bits of the protocol they just do not like, as my noble friend Lady Chapman said in her forceful contribution. As many noble Lords have said, the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is so concerned about the sheer scope of these powers that it recommends their removal from the Bill.
The Government are of course aware that the Bill will lead to a shirking of their international legal obligations, but they maintain that this is justified in international law by the doctrine of necessity—rather than invoking Article 16, as the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Howard, my noble friend Lady Kennedy and others have said. The doctrine of necessity has been invoked before, in Pakistan in 1954, to validate the extra-constitutional use of emergency powers. It was invoked in Grenada in 1985 to legalise a court that was trying people for a coup against Maurice Bishop. It was invoked in Nigeria in 2010 to create an acting president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Are we really saying that the situation in Northern Ireland, however problematic, justifies a doctrine used in the past for coup breaking and the instigation of martial law? I do not think so, and neither do most people and businesses in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The committee on common frameworks—our chair, my noble friend Lady Andrews, is here—looks at building the new UK single market post Brexit. When it took evidence from businesses and farming organisations operating in Northern Ireland last year, the messages we received were mixed. Yes, we heard about great frustration with the hold-ups and the lack of certainty on the movement of goods from GB to NI, leading to real logistics costs and investment difficulties. But we also heard acceptance of the economic model of the EU single market operating in Northern Ireland to protect that precious land border. We even heard some acknowledgement of the benefits for Northern Ireland businesses of being in the unique position of having access to two major worldwide trading markets, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, powerfully pointed out and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, has just decried.
Since the publication of the EU Commission’s non-paper of October 2021, which was dismissed as irrelevant by this Government, we have seen very practical examples set out by the EU to find solutions to the needs of Northern Ireland business—examples informed by EU discussions with those businesses and a willingness to move quite far on inspection reductions and certification. However much we want to ensure that the businesses and consumers of Northern Ireland are dealt with fairly and with justice, this wretched Bill will not do that, and it needs go no further.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the Bill we are debating today is deeply flawed, on grounds of both practice and principle. Moreover, it is a completely unnecessary piece of legislation, as anyone can see who takes the trouble to read the report of the Northern Ireland protocol sub-committee of your Lordships’ House, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, which was published just before the Summer Recess. That report makes it clear that, on the main issues dogging the implementation of the protocol—the need for a fast-track procedure and the safeguards protecting the EU’s single market in Northern Ireland for trade in agri-food products—the gap between the Commission’s and the UK’s positions is now very small. That seems to be the view of the Commission; is it that of the Government? If so, what is the rationale for this objectionable piece of legislation?
The practical flaws in this legislation are pretty obvious. It is said by the Government to be designed to bring the Commission to accept the UK’s version of the protocol. Has it had that effect? There have been no meaningful negotiations since February, so it does not seem to be working terribly well. Negotiations are now at last beginning; I noticed that the Minister described them as “technical contacts”, which was not terribly encouraging. I hope—we must all hope—that they succeed in bridging those rather narrow gaps that remain because, if the activation of the unilateral measures provided for in this Bill lead to retaliatory action by the EU, both Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK will be left worse off for an indefinite, open-ended period until another lot of negotiations begin.
It is also said by the Government that unilateral action is needed to safeguard the Good Friday agreement—an objective shared by every noble Lord who has spoken. But will this course of action be helpful or will it make things worse? The latter view seems to be that of the Irish and US Governments, the Commission, the non-unionist parties in Northern Ireland who hold a majority of seats in the Assembly and of most reasonably objective observers. Clearly, the views of the unionist community must be listened to with care, but the principal party on the unionist side of the Northern Ireland divide, the Democratic Unionist Party, actually bitterly opposed the Good Friday agreement, so may just possibly not be the best judge of what is now needed to safeguard it.
Then there are the considerations of principle against the course of action proposed. These are, if anything, even more compelling than the practical ones. We are being asked to approve unilaterally changing the protocol in a way for which there is no provision in the text negotiated and ratified by the Johnson Government, and which the manifesto that won the Government their majority in the other place said they were committed to implementing.
What then should we think of the so-called “doctrine of necessity” set out in an official document published in conjunction with the laying before Parliament of this Bill and purporting to provide the legal justification for the UK to unilaterally break the terms of the protocol? If the doctrine does exist—which I seriously question in anything like the circumstances of the Northern Ireland protocol—it presumably applies potentially to all the UK’s international commitments and obligations, ranging from the UN charter to Article 5 of the Atlantic alliance to every other commitment entered into and ratified following parliamentary approval. That is absurd and extremely dangerous. The doctrine of necessity was the doctrine that President Putin applied when he invaded Ukraine and the doctrine to which President Xi would turn if he wished to use force against Taiwan. We should have nothing to do with a doctrine which is so clearly the very antithesis of the rules-based international order to which the Government continue to pay lip service while ignoring its implications.
Overall, this is an unnecessary Bill which, in its present form, will do more damage than good and which thus requires radical amendment or not to be pursued at all.
Lord Godson (Con)
I rise in support of giving the Bill a Second Reading and as another member of the Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, to whom I pay tribute for his role as chair and for his remarks.
This is also the first time that this House has assembled to discuss the affairs of Northern Ireland since the demise of my late noble friend Lord Trimble. I know it will unify the House to pay tribute to him; he was a friend to many here across many divides. More particular to this context, Lord Trimble’s last great cause was opposing the Northern Ireland protocol and the legislation required here today. He did it for many good reasons, not least of which was his view that it constituted a very serious undermining of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, for which, with the late John Hume, he became a Nobel laureate—the last Nobel laureate for peace to sit in either House of Parliament. He played a key part in the design of that power-sharing model: strand one on the internal governance of Northern Ireland, strand two on north-south and, perhaps most significantly for today’s purpose, strand three on the east-west dimension. All were underpinned by the principles of consent and, perhaps even more importantly in light of the legislation we are discussing today, parity of esteem.
More particularly, the late Lord Trimble negotiated the strengthening of those east-west institutions so that they were defined not solely by a relationship between Dublin and London but by a relationship between Belfast and London and between the other component parts of the devolved settlement in Edinburgh and Cardiff. It also provided Irish recognition of unionist identity and aspiration, as conversely it provided for recognition of many aspects of Irish culture, notably the Irish language.
It is significant that the recent book One Good Day by David Donoghue, the Irish head of the Anglo-Irish Secretariat in Belfast at the time of the Good Friday agreement, makes this very point. He writes that the Ulster Unionist Party
“could contemplate North/South bodies only as a by-product of an expanded East/West relationship … Unionists regarded such a”
British-Irish
“Council as a necessary counterweight to the North/South institutions which nationalists wanted. We had no fundamental difficulty with this. We understood the need for unionists to see their identity given institutional expression.”
I was particularly grateful for the earlier comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, acknowledging Tony Blair’s part in the forging of that settlement. Whatever differences and controversies there may be about his legacy—not least in the Labour Party—there is, as the noble Baroness said, no difference on this matter. It is important for this purpose: Tony Blair understood the late Lord Trimble’s concerns, when he was the Ulster Unionist Party’s leader, on consent for north-south co-operation and, above all, on the importance of the east-west relationship. More to the point, he became a persuader for that east-west relationship because he knew that it was key to David Trimble forging the 1998 Good Friday agreement.
That agreement, with power-sharing, north-south co-operation and strong guarantees for the east-west relationship, is therefore not only part of David Trimble’s legacy; it is part of Tony Blair’s and the Labour Party’s legacy as well. Indeed, he could describe strand 3 as comprising Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, with no mention—incorrectly, if I may say so—of an Irish dimension.
The protocol has damaged this key relationship, as noble Lords all recognise. East-west co-operation is now uncertain. Goods are subject to all kinds of checks and delays, and even a prohibition designed to protect north-south co-operation, without regard to the implications for the east-west relationship. That is not the basis for the harmonious relationship envisaged in 1998. It also, as indicated, contradicts the principle of parity of esteem for both communities. After all, if trade is important for the north-south dimension, it is equally important for the east-west dimension. This Bill is therefore a necessary corrective for rectifying the damaged relationship and restoring the balance—the delicate balance, as many speakers have pointed out— of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I welcome it wholeheartedly.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I start by observing that today’s debate has seen the House of Lords at its very best, all sides expressing their arguments with force and conviction. We were particularly privileged to hear the blunt political appraisal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, and my noble friend Lord Bew’s intense and passionate plea to the DUP—I hope they heed it.
Like many others, I am fundamentally opposed to this Bill. Echoing my noble friend Lord Kerr, I oppose it for four reasons. First, as has been commonly observed throughout this debate, the Bill is unlawful. The whole weight of legal opinion is that the protocol cannot be overturned under the doctrine of necessity. The unexpected duo of my noble friend Lord Pannick and the noble Lord, Lord Howard, argued that case with ferocious persuasiveness. They are supported by a former head of the Government’s own legal department, who described the Government’s defence of it as “hopeless”, and that surely represents the consensus.
Acting unlawfully is not just wrong but, as others have observed, gravely damaging to the UK’s reputation internationally. Following the death of Her late Majesty the Queen, virtually the whole world was reminded of the power and, indeed, majesty of our constitutional settlement; of Britain’s path-finding route to democracy; of our solemn, centuries-long commitment to the rule of law. The rest of the world made perfectly clear during our period of national mourning just how much they respected us and admired that tradition. The calamitous mini-Budget has done untold damage to the UK’s reputation for fiscal probity. Please, may we not further sully our reputation by breaching a solemn and long-negotiated international treaty.
Secondly, the Bill is deeply offensive to Parliament, conferring as it does breathtaking delegated powers for Ministers to override much of the protocol without Parliament’s express consent.
Thirdly, passing the Bill will damage our relations with the EU when we should be doing everything possible to repair them after the bruising experience of Brexit. Overturning the protocol risks retaliatory action, affecting trade with our closest neighbour, our principal trading partner and one of the world’s largest economic blocs, with six times our GDP. A trade spat with the EU would certainly be a further blow to UK growth.
Fourthly, beyond trade, Putin’s anarchic bellicosity has driven home just how important it is for Europe to stick together, not least because history tells us that we will not always have a President in the White House as ready to defend Europe as Joe Biden.
Northern Ireland is where the Brexit rubber hits the road. Maintaining an open border with the Republic while exiting the EU was and is an enormous challenge, well explained by my noble friend Lord Jay and eloquently by the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Browne. There are real difficulties and they need to be addressed.
The Good Friday agreement was an enormous achievement, as the noble Lord, Lord Godson, just reminded us. Ultimately, it is a credit not just to Tony Blair but to all the sides involved, and we will find a solution to the conundrum of Brexit in Northern Ireland, which we must resolve, only by repeating that process of dialogue—not least with the patently well-intentioned participation of the Irish Government. Of course, the DUP must have a place at the table, but I gently urge the DUP to remember that 56% of the people of Northern Ireland voted in the referendum to remain in the EU, and that a clear majority of the Northern Ireland Assembly have declared themselves content in principle with the protocol, so the DUP must be ready to give and take too.
This Government are now very practised at U-turns. I express the hope that they will soon withdraw this highly destabilising Bill and choose instead the path of negotiation and reconciliation.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Cormack on his amendment and on the way in which he introduced it. Unfortunately, I missed many of the speeches that followed because I was engaged, with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in a committee meeting upstairs, but I was back in time to hear the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, express his amazement that a British Government should seek to renege on an important part of the treaty that they had negotiated freely, had brought before Parliament and had supported in Parliament. I agree very much with him on the significance of such an action.
I really do not believe that any Prime Minister before Mr Johnson would have introduced such a Bill. I am certain that one Prime Minister who would never have introduced such a Bill, or contemplated such an action, was Margaret Thatcher. I was a witness to many of her disputes with the European Union and one of the most striking features of her approach to these matters was that she believed in the rule of law and always rejected advice to break the law. Thankfully, we have moved on from Mr Johnson and I congratulate the Truss Administration on embarking on serious talks and negotiations with our friends in Brussels and Dublin. I also wish Ministers well in their efforts to sort out matters in Belfast, where the DUP has made such a strong link between the protocol and participating in the governance of the Province.
The EU itself has made constructive proposals, so the atmosphere is quite different from what it was only a short time ago. It seems to me vital, both to the UK’s national interest and, I would argue, to western cohesion in the face of Putin’s war, that the negotiations to which I have just referred should resolve the outstanding issues relating to the protocol. In the face of the escalating Ukraine war and the economic and energy disruption that it is causing, it would be the height of irresponsibility for the British Government to allow the Northern Ireland protocol to drive a wedge between us and the EU, and between us and our friends in Washington.
In these circumstances, I simply cannot accept the Government’s reasons for rushing ahead with the Bill at the present time. Suggestions that it will somehow encourage the EU to reach agreement—that a sword of Damocles hanging over the EU will bring it to heel—bear no relation to any conceivable reality. Far better would it be to negotiate in earnest, as I believe the Government are seeking to do, and demonstrate their good intentions by putting the Bill on ice in the hope that it will not have to be proceeded with any further once an agreement is reached.
I certainly support my noble friend Lord Cormack’s amendments. Should they come to the vote, whenever that should occur, I hope the House will support him too.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, having listened to the debate thus far, I appreciate that DUP-bashing can be a popular exercise for some noble Lords, but I can tell them that we have a good, strong back. But the fact is that not one unionist political party or elected representative in Northern Ireland supports the Northern Ireland protocol. Whenever you speak about the DUP, you are talking about unionism collectively. Noble Lords should never forget that. I also remind the House that the Northern Ireland Assembly is built on the premise not of majority rule but of cross-community consent, which the Northern Ireland protocol does not have.
The human rights provisions in the Belfast agreement provided the people of Northern Ireland with the right to
“pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.
Article 2 of the protocol obliges the UK Government to ensure that there is no diminishment of any Belfast agreement rights following Brexit. Yet the protocol challenges these rights of the people of Northern Ireland head-on, slashing the value of their vote.
I will quote from a letter I received from a lady in Northern Ireland:
“I am eternally grateful for the work of Ulster’s pioneering 19th century female human rights campaigner, Isabella Tod and those who followed her in the early 20th century, like Dora Mellone … My concern, however, is that the work of these great civil rights campaigners is being undermined, and that my civil rights are being infringed, by the Protocol. Tod, Mellone etc did not campaign for us to have the vote, only for the meaning of that vote to be substantially eroded compared with people living in Great Britain or in the Republic of Ireland. That, however, is the effect of the Protocol because in some 300 areas of law, in relation to which I previously was represented through my legislators, I have now become voiceless. This has immediate, direct and distressing equality implications because it means that I no longer enjoy equality with respect to UK citizens living in Scotland, Wales or England or indeed with citizens of the Republic of Ireland. In the same way UK citizens in Scotland, Wales and England can stand for election … or elect MPs to make their laws in the 300 areas, so too can citizens of the Republic … vote for TDs, Senators and MEPs to make laws in all these areas. The citizens of Northern Ireland are, therefore, uniquely discriminated against.”
Can anyone in this House support or accept that? When we read that letter in the context of the human rights provisions in the Belfast agreement and the obligations in the protocol on the British Government to ensure that there is no diminution of those rights because of Brexit, the case is unanswerable.
I make an economic point. The EU thinks we should be happy because we are offered reduced checks of 80%. If checks were reduced by 90%—
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does he accept that the DUP is currently preventing the restoration of all the political institutions in Northern Ireland at a time when the people are facing a cost of living and cost of business crisis and urgently need local governance to make decisions?
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
I accept that the DUP has made it abundantly clear that it will not go into the Executive. Have no doubt about that; let the House hear it clearly. I will refer to the speech of my right honourable friend, the leader of our party, on Saturday to his party conference.
As I was saying, if checks were reduced by 90%, it would make no difference because they are not the problem. The problem is the paperwork, which still has to be done whether a consignment is checked or not. Some might respond, “Why is that such a problem? Different countries export to each other all the time. Why should treating Northern Ireland as a third country in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom be economically devastating?” To answer that question, we have to understand that, although we talk about living in a globalised economy as if it was all one, in reality, while there are all manner of links between different state economies, the links within them are none the less qualitatively quite different.
Shipments in lorries between countries tend to be of one product in bulk; as there is only one product, you need only one set of paperwork, which is manageable. However, for shipments in lorries within integrated economies, the contents are quite different. Rather than being overwhelmingly one product, they tend to include multiple products, which means that if you try to treat them as exports, they need multiple pieces of paperwork. That costs money. It is why a number of firms state that they do not believe they can trade with Northern Ireland if the protocol goes on and is furthered by the desire for its full implementation.
Finally, because of time, since it has been raised today, I draw noble Lords’ attention to where the DUP stands. Our leader made this clear on Saturday:
“Let me be clear—either the Prime Minister delivers the provisions of the Protocol Bill by legislation or by negotiation and ensures that our place in the United Kingdom is restored... or there will be no basis to re-enter Stormont.”
That is clear. He continued:
“On this issue it is not words but actions we need to see and we will judge any outcome on the basis of actions not words.”
I say this to the Government tonight: get on with dealing, get on with action, enable us to get on with being equal citizens within the United Kingdom and let our people prosper.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lady Nicholson, for allowing me to speak out of sequence so that I could give evidence to the European Affairs Committee. I reassure my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft that I have been following as much of this very important debate as I can. It is a huge pleasure to be here to support the Government on this Second Reading of the Bill.
The House heard my views on the sad deterioration of the situation in Northern Ireland many times when I was on the Front Bench. I do not need to repeat them, as many noble Lords have made the point this afternoon. Clearly, the attempt to apply the protocol is no longer delivering the original intention of supporting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, but undermining it. Unionism has lost confidence in it, the status quo is highly unstable and risky, and change is needed.
That change is needed for economic as well as political reasons. Those who argue, as some have today, that Northern Ireland is benefiting from the protocol are simply wrong. Since the entry into force of the protocol, the UK’s economy has grown by 7.5% and Northern Ireland’s by 5.5%. PMI surveys in Northern Ireland have been consistently lower than the UK’s, and have actually been negative in the last four months. Exports from Great Britain to the EU have grown faster than those of Northern Ireland to the EU, which suggests that the supposed export boom from Northern Ireland to Ireland is a bit of a fantasy or an artefact of trade diversion. The Government are well within their rights to try to remedy this situation and bring forward this Bill. I note that it passed the other place unamended; that fact must influence the approach taken in this House.
The Government have made their view clear too, in their statement on 13 June, that the Bill is
“justified as a matter of international law.”
Of course, it is possible to find lawyers who take a different view—we have heard many distinguished lawyers today—but the Government are entitled to proceed on the basis of their own legal analysis, and that analysis is not disproven just by the existence of alternative opinions.
This Bill is essential not only on its own merits but in order to strengthen the hand of the British Government in their negotiations. If a negotiated agreement can be reached, that is obviously much better, but it is very hard to see that an agreement that does not amend the protocol very significantly will do the job. I work on the assumption that it is the intention of the Government to achieve a negotiated settlement of that level of ambition. The Prime Minister said in Parliament on 7 September that she preferred a negotiated solution, but
“it does have to deliver all the things that we set out in the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/22; col. 237.]
Some of the more recent mood music from the Government has been less clear-cut on that point, so perhaps in winding up my noble and learned friend the Minister will confirm that is still the Government’s approach and that they are not looking to endorse a negotiated settlement that delivers less than that. On the assumption that is still the Government’s policy, it is absolutely clear that they will need this Bill to deliver it. I will conclude by saying why.
As has been pointed out on several occasions and is well known, I was responsible for negotiating the protocol as we now have it. That negotiation, such as it was, has an important lesson for today. The crucial point is that any negotiation, if it is to find the right balance between the parties, needs to have a meaningful “walk away” option for both sides. We did not have that in 2019. This Parliament and this House had passed a law prohibiting us from leaving the European Union without a deal. The choice we faced, therefore, was on the one hand to see the endless continuation of negotiations with the EU from a position of weakness, some subversion of our efforts by Members of this Parliament and others in the political scene and perhaps see the referendum overturned altogether, or on the other hand do the best deal we could, accept the risks, and deliver the referendum result. I make no apology for choosing the latter, even though our forebodings have been amply justified by events.
The point of this Bill is to avoid that situation being repeated. If this Bill becomes law, the British Government—
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Will the noble Lord confirm that what he has just said amounts to saying that he was negotiating under duress in 2019 and the duress was applied by the British sovereign Parliament?
Lord Frost (Con)
I have made the point many times that we were operating within the constraint of a law that usurped the functions of the Executive and prevented us conducting negotiations. I have made that point many times, and I make it again today.
If this Bill becomes law, the British Government will regain agency over events. If they cannot reach an agreement through negotiation, they will be able to use the powers in this Bill to correct the current unsatisfactory situation under international law. The incentives on both sides will still be to reach agreement, but there will still be a “walk away” option, which means that a proper negotiation can take place.
If noble Lords prevent this Bill passing, they will put this Government into the same position I faced in 2019. Once again, there will be no “walk away” option. The Government will have to try to get the best negotiated outcome that the EU will allow them to have. They will be a petitioner for the EU’s grace and favour, not a negotiating partner. If the Government are not happy with what is on offer, the outcome will be even worse—the continuation of the current unsatisfactory situation and the current protocol.
I urge noble Lords not to make the same mistake as in 2019. Give the Government the powers they need to conduct a meaningful negotiation. Do not make them a supplicant in Brussels. Allow them to get the job done.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I am a member of the European protocol sub-committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, who tries to guide us at every meeting with great diplomacy. It is a great pleasure to serve with my colleagues on that committee. I welcome my great friend the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, to the Bench and am so pleased that he is still here answering on this and on other issues—not just on PSVI for us today, or the Year of the Girl, but on this issue too. I further thank all those outside organisations which have sent very helpful information and offered to have meetings.
The Northern Ireland protocol is part of the EU withdrawal agreement—a formal, international treaty—that attempted to deal with several specific problems that Brexit generated for relations between Ireland and the United Kingdom, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and within Northern Ireland. Overall, the protocol has three main objectives: to preserve the integrity of the EU’s single market, ensuring that Ireland’s relations with the rest of the UK remained significantly unaffected; to prevent the creation of a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland; and to protect the Good Friday agreement in “all its dimensions”. As part of protecting the Good Friday agreement, Article 2 of the protocol aims to ensure that there is,
“no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity, as set out in that part of the 1998 Agreement”
that deals with these issues.
The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill would break international law by the unjustified, unilateral breach of an international treaty with the European Union and thereby threaten a trade war between the UK and the EU. One central purpose of the Bill is to unilaterally disapply the trade and customs provisions of the protocol, which require some customs and regulatory checks on exports from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but it also gives “extraordinarily sweeping powers” to Ministers —to quote Theresa May—and weakens the Article 2 protections for human rights in Northern Ireland. I have heard much evidence of this in the committee.
The Bill is unjustified. The legislation is unnecessary, because the purpose could be achieved through negotiation. The resumption of talks between the UK and the EU, halted since February, is welcome, and I hope that they will continue. The comment last Thursday by the Tánaiste that the implementation of the protocol might have been “a little too strict” allows a willingness to compromise.
The protocol does not threaten the Good Friday agreement, as alleged by some unionists and the Government; its main purpose is to protect it. Some have argued that the Good Friday agreement requires the consent of unionists to any significant political change in Northern Ireland, arguing that the protocol is designed to offset the dangerous impact of Brexit in such a change. That contradicts the fact that the consent of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole was not deemed necessary for Brexit itself; now it is held that the consent of one of Northern Ireland’s minorities is needed for an aspect of its outworking. There is nothing in the Good Friday agreement that requires that, although the protocol itself requires the consent of the majority of the Assembly after four years—cross-community consent if possible; otherwise a simple majority. The protocol will be subject to a democratic vote in Northern Ireland.
The Government have to seek to justify their breach of international law by reliance on the doctrine of necessity, which allows some breaches of treaties if an essential interest is threatened by grave and imminent peril. That is hardly the case and, as David Lammy argued when the Bill was first debated,
“there is not a serious Queen’s Counsel in the country who would support the use of the doctrine of necessity in the way in which the Government have sought to use it.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/22; col. 51.]
The Bill weakens Article 2 of the protocol and hence allows a diminution of human rights in Northern Ireland. This is absolutely vital. As we have noted, human rights and equality protections are included in Article 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol to prevent the diminution of rights protections in Northern Ireland after Brexit and to provide remedies in local courts for breaches of this obligation. It references the list of human rights and equality provisions in the Good Friday agreement and backs them up by specifying the EU legislation that underpins them. The UK Government have claimed that the Bill does not undermine these provisions of the protocol, but that is not the case. It is true that the Bill excludes Article 2 from some of the powers that the Bill provides to Ministers to revoke other provisions in the protocol. But this apparent protection is misleading, because the Bill fatally undermines the operation of Article 2 in several other critical respects.
Because of time, I will just say that we have a piece of legislation involving a breach of the international rule of law itself, which is unnecessary and unjustified, which could provoke a disastrous trade war and which allows for the weakening of the structure of human rights and equality which underpin the Northern Ireland peace process. It should not be supported.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I, too, am a member of the Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Jay.
The noble Lord, Lord Frost, has just demonstrated to us that he would not get an O-level in the constitutional law and practice of the United Kingdom. He told us that this unconstitutional Bill was drafted to strengthen the UK’s bargaining position with the EU. It is an attempt to bully the EU into making changes to the Northern Ireland protocol. In saying that, he of course concedes that the UK lacks bargaining power against the 27 other members of the union. The UK does not have a large enough shillelagh.
However, there are problems. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, referred to the barriers to trade, while the noble Lord, Lord Godson, took the opportunity to praise Tony Blair for his understanding. On 9 June 2016, in the course of the referendum campaign, Tony Blair, speaking in Londonderry, said that a vote to leave would mean that the only alternative to controls on a land border
“would have to be checks between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK”,
which, he added,
“would be plainly unacceptable as well.”
This was described by the then First Minister, Arlene Foster—then leader of the DUP—as “a deeply offensive scare story”, but it came true.
We are all familiar with what happened. In October 2019, Mr Johnson described his deal as
“a good arrangement … with the minimum possible bureaucratic consequences”.
This was in direct contradiction of a contemporaneous document drawn up by the Treasury, which warned that
“customs declarations and documentary and physical checks … will be highly disruptive to the NI economy.”
That was the advice he had received. But he advised traders to throw paperwork into the bin. Famously, he said:
“There will be no border down the Irish Sea—over my dead body.”
But there is, and he is politically no more.
The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, raised the point—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, followed him—that there has been no attempt to trigger the dispute resolution mechanisms contained in Article 16. It would have forced the UK into detailed negotiations with the EU, not breaking the protocol but taking place within its architecture. Instead, the Government promoted Article 16 as though it were a nuclear threat that, if employed, would obliterate the protocol altogether.
In particular, the DUP and, as the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, told us, all other unionists were misled into believing that the protocol was everything—“Break the protocol”—and that triggering these unremarkable dispute resolution procedures would somehow end the virtual border in the Irish Sea. As a result, they continue to block a new Executive, perhaps hoping for a rerun of last May’s election when time runs out on 28 October. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, pointed out, there have been demographic changes. Indeed, the last opinion polling on 25 July in no way pointed to a resurgence in DUP or unionist support. The Alliance Party is on track to overhaul them.
Why has the agreed machinery of Article 16 not been used? What Boris Johnson agreed through the withdrawal agreement, of which the protocol is a part, was that any issue of EU law arising in Article 16 arbitration procedures should be decided by the European Court of Justice. The Conservative Party opposite has a completely irrational hatred for that court, despite UK advocates having historically the greatest degree of success of any EU country before its judges. Mr Johnson pushed this concession through Parliament with his majority because they did not understand what he had conceded. In all probability he did not understand it, either, but the noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite strewed flowers in his way. But they do not have to pick up Johnson’s leavings by continuing with this mis-sold Bill which shames our country. They can start again.
Take the European Court of Justice. In a debate entitled “Brexit: Dispute Resolution and Enforcement”, I suggested that the Government should negotiate for
“a special chamber of the European Court of Justice”—
they have the power in their constitution to create one—with an equal number of UK and EU judges. As I said, it could deal with
“disputes arising out of the special circumstances of our leaving the EU”.—[Official Report, 17/10/18; col. 466.]
I developed that argument at the time and will not repeat it, but that solution would deal with the issue that the CJEU is the court of one of the parties to a dispute.
If the current Prime Minister wants to make her mark in history in the limited time available to her, she should withdraw this ignominious Bill and get down to sensible negotiations immediately. Trade barriers and the democratic deficit are genuine problems that must be resolved by agreement fashioned with good will. In the past two weeks, her Government appear to have been making a start.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, recently, the work of the European Affairs Committee has been heavily overshadowed by the Northern Ireland protocol. While work on the protocol itself is carried out by our sister Northern Ireland protocol committee, we concentrate on the many other matters that remain open in the large and complex relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
Many things are in the deep freeze. To name a few examples, there is the unresolved position on the Horizon programme, the unresolved agreement for regulatory co-operation in financial services and the issues relating to the movement of both creative professionals and people in education. The 32 committees set up under the withdrawal agreement and the trade and co-operation agreement are not operating at full pace to adjust matters to the benefit of all concerned because of the protocol impasse.
The circumstances where a Bill along the lines of the one before us might be warranted would be, I feel, very dire. I do not believe that we are even close to such circumstances today. I note with optimism the recent warm words from many of the parties involved in discussing the protocol and the restarting of discussions between the principals. However, this Bill is before the House and I will briefly comment on three areas that I feel need amendment.
The first concerns the sanctity of treaty. We have recently discussed in this Chamber a number of times recently the importance of living up to treaty obligations and obligations under international agreements in general; it has been a strong theme this afternoon. In my regular interactions with my opposite numbers as chairs of the European affairs committees of other European countries—and that goes a lot wider than just members of the European Union—in particular as the UK has assumed such a leadership position in the current war in Ukraine, the most common comment made to me is of the importance of the UK especially showing leadership in living up to the spirit and letter of international agreements.
In the Ukraine/Russia context, there are many international agreements that all depend on: the NATO treaty, agreements over sanctions and agreements relating to energy, for instance. The rules-based order within the western liberal democracy world depends on the leading players showing example. This point has been made to me by pretty well every country’s representative I have met in recent times. We meet formally as chairs of European affairs committees face to face four times a year; thus I feel it is important in these circumstances to underline the UK’s commitment to the sanctity of treaty and to living up to the letter and spirit of international agreements, including in this Bill.
The second area concerns the involvement of Parliament in the making of, or the variation of, international agreements and treaties. In the period before Brexit, the UK citizen in the street had the benefit of parliamentary representatives being able to scrutinise international agreements at the European Parliament level and, through the operation of the scrutiny reserve resolutions, the Westminster Parliament level—both from the start of the negotiating process and throughout it. Indeed, many here today will have served on the European Union committee structure and will have engaged in the scrutiny of international agreements. In addition to those meaty scrutiny arrangements, the CRaG arrangements allow for limited scrutiny processes right at the end of the agreeing of a new treaty. Following Brexit, this scrutiny structure has fallen away, and we are left only with the highly unsatisfactory CRaG processes.
The European Union Committee scrutinised the many new trade deals concluded by the United Kingdom during the Brexit period—I think there were just under 100—and in June 2019 we wrote a report, Scrutiny of International Agreements: Lessons Learned, in which we laid out a firm recommendation as to how international agreements could and should be looked at by both Houses of Parliament. This Bill would see major changes to an international agreement being made simply by decision of a Minister without any reference to Parliament. For the reasons in our report of June 2019, I do not believe that is right. Something akin to what we then recommended should be instituted and the Bill amended accordingly.
Thirdly, and finally, I come to the importance of dealing with the various traditions and groupings in Northern Ireland in an even-handed way with good consultative approaches. As we have heard from many speakers today, this approach is the secret of the great success of the Belfast/Good Friday agreements, which use this approach consistently in their mechanisms. The very first report of the EU Committee after the Brexit vote in December 2016 was Brexit: UK-Irish Relations. We commented on the importance of that dynamic very heavily in that report. I reread the report over the weekend and I have to say that it is as fresh today as it was in December 2016.
I do not feel that the Bill today makes this simple and effective approach a commitment for a Minister. In his opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, made it clear that there was a considerable consultative process but this is another instance where the face of the Bill must have the comfort that even-handedness and consultation will remain at the heart of any changes. Perhaps the Minister could comment.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, there is much to be learned from the speech of the noble Earl and I am grateful to be able to follow him.
I want to refer to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. There one can find 11 devastating and fundamental criticisms of the Bill, not one of which has been satisfactorily been dealt with by the Government outside Parliament, in the other place or, I fear, despite his charm and undoubted integrity, by my noble friend the Minister earlier today. That any relatively short Bill, but certainly one of such legal and constitutional importance as this one, should provide so many powerful reasons for criticism is shocking, although, since the change of Prime Minister in July 2019, perhaps unsurprising. One might have hoped that his departure would have made a difference. As for my noble friend Lord Frost’s suggestion that the Bill gives the Government agency, I am, unusually, lost for words.
The Bill is the ugly constitutional twin of the ill-starred UK Internal Market Act, which in December 2019 the then Northern Ireland Secretary admitted deliberately broke international law. This Bill breaks the same treaty but adds to that by permitting government Ministers to make laws, to amend them or to disapply them and our treaty obligations. That Secretary of State is now the Lord Chancellor, the guardian in Cabinet of the rule of law and our constitution. What is the point of making treaties if our Government think they matter only at and for the moment a Prime Minister signs them? What is the point of Parliament if elected Members of Parliament are prepared to delegate to Ministers the most important constitutional duty they have—to make considered statute law and to hold government to account? Of course I understand the politics affecting the Bill, but is it not ironic that it requires your Lordships’ House to uphold democratic and constitutional propriety?
Of course, some will say that the end justifies the means: that the preservation of the union of the United Kingdom is more important than constitutional or legal purity. Even if one tries to ignore the slippery slope that suggests, it is a false dichotomy. As the Minister of State for Northern Ireland, my honourable friend Mr Steve Baker, recently accepted, extravagant posturing is less productive than diplomacy. The end does not justify the means, because the means are not the road to the desired goal. Worse, if we want to throw petrol on the angry fire of communalism and of separatism within the United Kingdom, look no further than this Bill for the jerrycan.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, whatever one may think of Northern Ireland politics, peace and political stability is thanks to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is quite clear that this is being damaged by the protocol and it has resulted in political chaos. This Bill is designed to address the political challenges.
Just recently it has become apparent that the European Union recognises the problems created by the protocol, which has resulted in a softer attitude from the European Union. The Bill we are discussing today has been a key element in this change of attitude. It is essential for the sake of a harmonious solution to the Northern Ireland situation that His Majesty’s Government have the Bill to add strength to their arguments. It is this which has encouraged the EU to recognise how the protocol is making the Good Friday agreement unworkable. As my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out, it is contrary to the intention of the protocol. If I may quote:
“Nothing in the Agreement should undermine the objectives and commitments set out in the Good Friday Agreement.”
To argue against the Bill and therefore against the Government’s ability to seek a solution, as has been done today, is to work against a harmonious solution. I urge all noble Lords to get behind the Bill for the sake of everyone concerned: the European Union, Northern Ireland, southern Ireland and the United Kingdom. When my noble friend Lord Cormack argues for a delay to allow a negotiated settlement, he is only reducing the chances of such a settlement. This country is no longer part of the European Union, and to oppose the Bill will not change that.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, no matter his verbal dexterity and acknowledged charm, the Minister was unable to present this Bill as anything other than what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, called “a manifest breach of international law”. Many noble Lords taking part in this afternoon’s debate have urged the Government to reconsider. I add my voice to theirs, for three foreign policy reasons.
First, the UK’s reputation for standing by the agreements it signs is as important to its standing in the world as the excellence of its Armed Forces. For my whole career at the Foreign Office, the UK made the case for a rules-based international order. Without rules—all rules, not just the ones you like—the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must. Many of the foreign diplomats on the other side of the negotiating table in my career were unhappy with British advocacy of rules; they pointed out that my wily predecessors had written many of those rules expressly to suit British purposes. Now, the Government propose to set aside an agreement which they co-wrote less than three years ago. At the very least, we invite bemused puzzlement.
Secondly, the Bill not only damages our overall reputation but specifically damages relations with key external partners. We have definitively left the European Union but it remains our neighbour. We benefit from a constructive relationship with our larger neighbour. Brussels has repeatedly made clear two things: first, its willingness to negotiate implementation of the protocol, and, secondly, its settled view that a unilateral move to set aside the protocol would be seen as an act of bad faith. We hear a lot these days about a reset in London’s relations with Brussels, about improved atmospherics and better personal relations. This Bill imperils all that and the Government must know it. If the Bill passes and is implemented, the EU would feel justified in retaliating; after all, it has warned us often enough that that would happen.
Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, referred to the President of the United States and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, disputed the importance of his role. Yet President Biden identifies himself as an Irish Catholic. He takes a close interest in what happens in all of Ireland. His Administration have signalled repeatedly their unhappiness with this unilateral action. Having left our regional club, the views of our main ally and partner should loom even larger in our calculations.
Parliament is sovereign but it is not immune from the consequences of its actions. Although Parliament can pass this Bill, it should weigh the international consequences before doing so. If the Government are wise, they will drop the Bill. Negotiation, without the threat of unilateral action, would be far more likely to deliver the result which everyone in your Lordships’ House desires.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend, his department and our Whips for their engagement with my serious concerns about this Bill. I have great sympathy with my noble friend on the Front Bench; I cannot imagine he has been in a very comfortable position recently given what is contained in this Bill. As my noble friends know, I cannot support this Bill but I am delighted that there are negotiations and that we are, I hope, going to be able to reach some kind of negotiated settlement.
The UK that I have grown up in and that I love, and that so many global nations respect, is a parliamentary democracy that defends the rule of law and the international rules-based order; it has a reputation for integrity, trustworthiness, honesty and morality. This Bill undermines all these traditional elements of our international standing. I am ashamed that this legislation is before us and find its measures baffling, frightening and indefensible.
As has been said, the clauses of the Bill dismantle an international agreement, recently signed, which has been operating as described by the 2019 impact assessment. The doctrine of necessity cannot be used here for reasons eloquently explained by my noble friend Lord Howard, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others. The problem is our decision to leave the EU and, in particular, the decision to adopt a hard Brexit, leaving the EU single market and customs union while having a land border with the EU. The un-British belligerence contained in this Bill and the fantasy thinking that the UK can dictate its own terms to other countries by threat and wish away geographical realities and international law are, quite frankly, shocking.
In a world where Northern Ireland was no longer attached to Ireland, no border checks would be needed and goods could flow freely into the single market. In a world with the promised alternative arrangements, there might be no need for border checks as technology—which, by the way, is not available anywhere in the world—would magically solve the problem which the Northern Ireland protocol aims to deal with. There may be a world, but it is not one that I recognise, where countries can sign international co-operation agreements with fingers crossed behind their backs and tear them up soon afterwards to please a political party, but that surely is not our country.
However, the most egregious element of this Bill is not the legal element; for me, it is that it overrides our parliamentary democracy. It seeks to enshrine in law our country becoming an elected dictatorship where Ministers can bypass Parliament and simply decide even to break international law should they so wish. The breathtaking, untrammelled powers putting our international standing at risk, potentially overriding human rights—as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, has explained—and risking starting a trade war with the European Union should this Bill pass, are, quite frankly, baffling.
My noble friend Lord Frost may have been in earnest when he told us that we must not repeat the mistakes he was dealing with where Parliament was usurping the power of the Executive. But since when do we have a system of government where Parliament has no right to stand up against measures damaging our national interest. Having listened to the hours of debate thus far, I have to say that it is clearer to me than ever that this House has a duty to oppose this Bill.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after my noble friend. I welcome this Bill and support it wholly. There has been much talk of international law in the course of this debate and I trespass on that territory with some trepidation because I am not a lawyer and claim no expertise in jurisprudence. However, it seems to me that one should question some of the claims that have been made.
It is easy to imagine, given the way that it has been discussed, that international law simply because it is international is some sort of supreme law, rather like FIFA outranks UEFA and UEFA is somehow higher than the Football Association. But that of course is not the case at all. And it is easy to imagine, given the way it is spoken of, that a breach of international law is somehow akin to a criminal offence.
International law does of course create some criminal offences—the waging of an illegal war is one of them. But most of international law is much more akin to a sort of civil contract between parties agreeing how they are simply going to conduct their business on something as mundane as the quality of sausages, for example. That is where we are in this debate, and comparisons with Putin and other such extravagant claims are wholly grotesque and misleading.
In my view, there are other laws higher than international law; one of them is the law to maintain the integrity of our own state. The protocol is a clear wound and severance in the integrity of the United Kingdom. That is why this is a matter of interest not simply to the people of Northern Ireland but to all the people of the United Kingdom.
There is nothing new about this. Shakespeare, of course, had quite a lot to say about it. He envisages an onerous contract, freely entered into, that can be satisfied only by an irreparable wound in the body, possibly a fatal one. He specifically asks the question: how should the law deal with this? It is very easy to say that the answer is that the pound of flesh has got to be paid. In my view, there are too many noble Lords in the Chamber today who have been insisting on the right of the European Union to demand its pound of flesh; there are not enough lawyers who share the wisdom and humanity of Portia.
Apart from the harm to the body politic that the protocol does, there is the question of whether the protocol, far from being a shining pillar of international law, is not in fact in flagrant breach of it. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, gave a number of examples of how the protocol conflicts with other treaties that we and the Republic of Ireland are obliged to. None of the legal experts that I have heard speak in this debate has addressed satisfactorily the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, and others, of whether it complies with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European convention, both of which guarantee a democratic and representative say to people on the laws under which they live. That is denied to the people of Northern Ireland in respect of a large swathe of significant laws. That democratic deficit is recognised by our own Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, but no answer has come on whether the protocol is defensible.
That is also a point that goes to those who say that we should be using Article 16. Article 16 is a mechanism for adjusting the implementation of the protocol, but the democratic deficit in the protocol is not due to its implementation; it is at the very heart of the protocol, and this Bill is necessary to deal with it. Nor is the matter addressed by saying that the people of Northern Ireland through the Assembly in Stormont have an opportunity to vote on it. One cannot vote away, and one’s parliament cannot vote away, fundamental human rights.
To those noble Lords who wave about the notions of the rule of law and international law as if they were simple, straightforward, knockdown arguments against this Bill, I say that in my view the whole matter is a great deal subtler and a less robust platform for them to rest their case on than they might think. Although there are only a few speakers left on the list, I am still open to hearing someone defend how the protocol is consistent with international law on human rights.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, this is the first opportunity that I have had to address your Lordships’ House since the untimely death of my friend Lord Trimble. The noble Lord, Lord Godson, spoke at length, and rightly so, about the enormous contribution that David Trimble made to the community and to political life in his native Northern Ireland, not least in his critical role in implementing the Good Friday agreement.
I was Ulster Unionist Party chairman in the period up to and beyond the signing of the Belfast agreement. I witnessed at first hand the pivotal role that David played, not only in finalising that deal but in keeping the peace process on track at moments of great crisis. This included the aftermath of the Omagh bomb, on 15 August 1998, which claimed the lives of 29 innocent people and two unborn twins. Four days later, I accompanied David to the funeral mass, in Buncrana, County Donegal, for eight year-old Oran Doherty, and James Barker and Sean McLaughlin, both aged 12. There was some media furore at the time on the basis that David and I were members of the Orange Order, but we wanted to stand united with the wonderful people of Donegal in their time of unspeakable grief. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that all of us stand with the people of Donegal today as they come together in tragic circumstances for the funerals of Jessica Gallagher and Martin McGill, in Creeslough. David Trimble was a great man, a family man, a wise man, a brave man and a fine parliamentarian. His death is a huge loss to Northern Ireland and, of course, to this House.
I turn to the Bill before us today. It will not surprise your Lordships to know that I continue to thoroughly resent the existence of the Northern Ireland protocol. His Majesty’s Government have spent almost three years blaming the European Union for its sheer awfulness. However, what Ministers frequently neglect to mention is that the protocol was agreed by Boris Johnson with the full support of his then Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss. Northern Ireland was sacrificed for political expediency by a Prime Minister in a hurry, with the backing of his eventual successor. The Bill before your Lordships today is merely a diversionary tactic—a sticking plaster to pretend that it was the other side’s fault. Not only that but Ministers have openly acknowledged, initially from the lips of the now Justice Secretary, Brandon Lewis, that the legislation itself contravenes international law.
I have spent my life celebrating and defending Northern Ireland’s position as an integral part of the United Kingdom. The Good Friday agreement was a huge moment for us, as it should have been for everyone who cherishes Northern Ireland’s place in the heart of the union. The Belfast agreement states very clearly that
“it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland, save with the consent of the majority of its people”.
It was on that basis that the Ulster Unionist Party campaigned vigorously and successfully for a yes vote in the subsequent referendum. This situation should never have been changed without their consent, but Boris Johnson, supported by senior Ministers, including Liz Truss, thought otherwise. In an essay first published by the Belfast News Letter in 2021 and reproduced following his untimely death in July, David Trimble wrote:
“I feel betrayed personally by the Northern Ireland Protocol, and it is also why the unionist population is so incensed at its imposition. The protocol rips the very heart out of the agreement, which I and they believed safeguarded Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom and ensured that democracy not violence, threat of violence or outside interference, would or could ever change that.”
We are where we are. My noble friend Lord Empey, who is unfortunately unable to be in his place today because of family commitments back in Belfast, has previously outlined some of the common-sense solutions that the Ulster Unionist Party has put forward to try to ease the burden faced by businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland because of this protocol. We want to be constructive, and we genuinely wish the UK and EU negotiating teams every success following the resumption of talks last week. But the people of Northern Ireland should never have been placed in this invidious position. No one voted for an Irish sea border.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I regret the Bill before us this evening. On its passage through this place, I will oppose the provisions in it, on both legal and political grounds.
My starting point is that we cannot resile from or breach an international agreement that we freely entered into only three years ago. Moreover, the protocol is not a standalone agreement. It forms the centrepiece of the EU withdrawal agreement. By pursuing this Bill today, we risk reopening the whole agreement on which we left the European Union. In summing up the debate, what assurance can my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart, the Advocate-General for Scotland, give us that there will be no retaliatory measures following the passage of this Bill? I do not believe that he or the Government are in a position to do so. What I fail to understand is why those on these Benches who negotiated the protocol and the EU withdrawal agreement now jeopardise the very foundations on which they were built.
Politically, I welcome the positive engagement that the Prime Minister has undertaken with our European neighbours in attending the Prague summit of the European Political Community. I welcome the fact that—as my noble friend Lord Ahmad said in a conversation that I am pleased he took the time to have with me yesterday—the mood music has indeed changed. He gave an assurance to the House today that technical discussions on the protocol between the UK and EU have commenced, with a view to resolving the issues where they are not seen to be working under the protocol. I note that, in his words, the tone is cordial and that substantive practical measures are being considered.
The economy of Northern Ireland has flourished in the past three years. The economic activity has increased at a higher rate of GDP than that enjoyed in the rest of the United Kingdom. There must be a reason for that, and I suggest that it might be that Northern Ireland remains within the single European market.
As my noble friend Lord Howard put to the House this evening, the doctrine of necessity is not appropriate in the context of this Bill. Perhaps that legal basis has been chosen so that the Government can adopt a select, pick-and-mix approach to those areas where they believe that the protocol is not working, as opposed to those areas where they believe that it is working quite well. The fact that Article 16 has not been chosen as the legal basis proves in my view that the protocol has not fundamentally broken down.
I associate myself entirely with those such as my noble friend Lady Altmann and others in the Chamber today who have said that the Bill will allow an unacceptable level of delegated legislation. I also support the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, who described the mess of dual regulation that will flow from the provisions of the Bill before us this evening. I share her concern for what the Bill will mean for dairy movements between Northern and southern Ireland. I will add that there are other implications for farmers. I ask my noble and learned friend the Minister why the trusted trader scheme, the digital customs arrangements and data sharing have never been realised; why the principle of equivalence has never been agreed, to the detriment of many UK exports; and why the nonsensical prohibition of exports of seed potatoes into the EU and Northern Ireland from Britain remains in place.
Never in recent history have there been more pressing reasons for co-operation between European nations, because of the hostilities in Ukraine and the global threats to energy and food security. I urge the Government to prioritise negotiations on the protocol over the provisions of the Bill and to pause their proceedings after Second Reading today. I sympathise with the arguments put forward on democratic deficit by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and other noble Lords—who I consider noble friends—on the Democratic Unionist Benches. Those arguments were as valid at the time that the protocol was adopted as they are now. Perhaps the tragedy is that the Government of the day forged ahead with what this Government now consider to be, in part, a flawed agreement.
Negotiations are a two-way process. I very much welcome that current negotiations have commenced. I cannot support the Bill this evening. I will give it a Second Reading but I hope that it goes no further at this time. I urge the Government to think again and pause the Bill after today.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, believe it or not, we are only five weeks into His Majesty’s new Government. I suspect that, if others around the Chamber feel like me, it probably feels more like five months. However, in effect, the Government have been in office for only three weeks because of the unfortunate death of Her Majesty. One might have hoped that that would have given the Administration time to think through some of the things they were trying to do.
The Government have a range of huge political and economic challenges. At the beginning of the debate, I was amused in the wrong way when the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, appealed for unity across the House. I thought that was a slight case of the pot calling the kettle black, given the current problems there appear to be within his own party.
In order to calm things down, the Government have decided to push forward with this Bill—to negotiate with, in effect, an unstable hand grenade in one hand and a pen in the other. That is not a particularly compelling negotiating position. So how do we get out of jail with this particular problem? I have four suggestions to make to your Lordships for consideration.
The first, quite simply, is to be honest, and to remember the huge diaspora that the Government are talking to. They are not talking only to the 81,326 members of the Conservative Party who voted for the new Prime Minister, nor the 113 Members of the other place who voted for her. They are talking to the entire UK. If one puts all the different components of the so-called “anti-growth alliance” together and does the arithmetic, it makes up a majority of those qualified to vote in the UK—so that is not a great place to start.
One is talking of course to all of Northern Ireland. I heard today of the concept of “wise unionists”, which presumably means that there are less wise or unwise unionists. I will not opine which is which—others have done that for me. Clearly, we are talking to the EU, but we are also talking to the United States. I remember vividly, in February 2019—which was the first time I heard the subject raised in an intelligent way in your Lordships’ House—the noble Lord, Lord Putnam, talked about the fact that he spent a very large part of his professional time in the United States and had many friends there, and was conscious of how strong the Irish-American vote and political lobby were. He advised the Government to remember that and be careful. Unfortunately, that does not seem to have happened.
The second point is to admit your own mistakes, quickly and with contrition. People will be more ready to forgive and forget if you are honest. Do not obfuscate or evade. I thought some of the comments by some of the wise—or unwise—unionists, effectively saying, “The protocol was nothing to do with us”, were perhaps a trifle disingenuous.
Thirdly, do not needlessly antagonise those you need to do business with. The Government have managed to piss off the EU, this House and, even more formidably, the Delegated Powers Committee. Can one learn from the past, I wonder? I googled some of the ruminations of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, on how we got here. In his Churchill lecture in Zurich last year he said:
“We never wanted this appalling bitterness and it is frustrating to Brexiteers that we have somehow attracted much of the blame for it.”
The bit I particularly liked in that sentence was the “somehow”. I was not impressed by him effectively saying that Parliament had subverted his ability to negotiate. What is Parliament for if not to decide what we should be negotiating for and how we should negotiate?
Fourthly and lastly, I am not a Northern Ireland expert; my first degree is in history. It is often said that in Ireland there is no present and there is no future; there is only the past, endlessly repeating itself. It is clear that the sociodemographics of Northern Ireland are changing. The recent census has demonstrated that. Sentiment about the future of Ireland is beginning to change quite rapidly. I say that having spoken to various people who live in Northern Ireland and are observing what is going on. I suspect that part of that sentiment is that a large part of the population, I suspect particularly the younger part, want to look towards a future that is not defined by a wish to extend or recreate the past. I am reminded of King Canute trying to stop the tide coming in.
It is not on my CV, but in my early years I was a gravedigger. If you are a gravedigger, you know that at a certain point, if you go too far, the walls will fall in. I appeal to His Majesty’s Government: please stop digging.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, by this late hour we have heard many articulate, passionate and, dare I say, tetchy speeches. Accusations abound. We are told that the Bill is constitutional vandalism, no less—a law that will give succour to Putin. Surprisingly, the anti-Brexit coalition seem to have become fans of invoking Article 16, all as a stick to beat the Bill with.
Although we have listened to a plethora of lectures about tarnishing the UK’s international reputation, many of us who support the Bill’s aims emphasise the importance of UK politicians not further tarnishing their reputation at home among their national electorate. I make no apology for focusing on democracy and lawmaking within UK borders. My priority is national and popular sovereignty. As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, reminded us, it is jarring when those ideals are cheered when they are bravely fought for in Ukraine but sneered at when they inspire voters or law changes at home.
A quick back to basics, lest we forget: in 2016 the UK as a whole, and that includes Northern Ireland, voted to leave the EU. Millions voted to take control of our laws, our borders and political decision-making. Lest we forget, many Brexiteers knew then that the protocol was a desperate, flawed fudge. Why? To get Brexit over the line. Why did we need to get Brexit over the line more recently? Because for years sections of the establishment tried to thwart and overturn the democratic decision of their own citizens, in flagrant disregard of the rule of law and any sense of democracy. Now that imperfect protocol, which has been inflexibly interpreted by one side, insists that the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the EU will hold sway over some UK citizens and compromises the integrity of the borders of the UK’s internal market.
When there has been a nod to democracy in this debate it has been when we have heard from, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that the majority of Northern Irish parties object to the Bill. Similarly, we are reminded that, to quote one critic of the Bill in the other place,
“the majority of … Northern Ireland have not consented to Brexit in any form, and a majority of voters and MLAs reject the Bill in the strongest terms.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/22; col. 76.]
But surely a UK-wide referendum means just that, not a balkanised, divisive approach to geographic political differences. The majority of London voted to remain, and the same in Scotland. Would it be okay if Greater London and Scotland declared UDI, saying that they preferred to stay in the EU single market and take instruction from the ECJ? Indeed, is this not just the approach that Nicola Sturgeon is adopting now in her demands for yet another independence referendum?
I note a certain double standard in respecting the wishes of the voters in devolved areas. My fellow Welsh citizens voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU. That did not stop Labour’s Mark Drakeford and the Senedd continually declaring that the electorate had made a grave error and trying to undermine that majority decision.
Of course, we can all note that the union is under strain at present. Since 2016, lots of British politicians seem to have noticed that the border between the six counties and the 26 counties is rather troublesome, let me say. Well spotted, if belatedly.
Yes, some in Northern Ireland are now arguing that that border is artificial and are calling for a border poll. It is absolutely legitimate to campaign for that border poll and, indeed, to campaign for a united Ireland, but that is a completely separate question from this one. The borders in which the majority voted to reclaim democratic sovereignty from the EU were the borders of the United Kingdom as is, and that is why, whatever our substantial differences on many matters, I give solidarity to the DUP and the unionist community, they may be surprised to hear.
A blame game has taken place in this Chamber that suggests that it is the DUP who are the anti-democrats here, expressed bluntly by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. That felt to me cheap, misplaced and ironic. Yes, ironic because actually all the DUP speakers were the ones who talked about civil liberties and equal treatment under the law, which are thrown out by the protocol. I am also rather worried when a government Minister, Chris Heaton-Harris, chides the DUP, saying,
“Whatever issues there are with the protocol, there are very important functions and services that the people of Northern Ireland need to work”—
as if the DUP had not noticed. However, when he says,
“whatever issues there are with the protocol”,—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/22; col. 220.]
if the Government do not understand that these issues are not second-order, if they do not understand that these issues are crucial, it does not give me much faith that this Government will see the Bill through. I hope I am wrong.
Why attack the DUP? I appreciate that politicians who will not be bullied into U-turning and abandoning their mandate may be a rarity in this unelected Chamber, but I think it is admirable, and while I listened carefully to the wise words of the brilliant speech by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, if noble Lords here are really motivated by a desire to restore the power-sharing Executive, then it is simple: vote for the Bill. I certainly will, and I will be doing so on behalf of British voters as well.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I was not sure whether to speak in this debate on a Bill which I simply do not like, but after all the efforts to conclude the internationally acclaimed Good Friday agreement and then the withdrawal agreement and protocol with the EU, in which some noble Lords were involved, I was very disappointed to see this Bill being presented. My noble friend Lord Frost, who was much involved, describe the withdrawal agreement and protocol at the time as a carefully negotiated agreement. In the light of some of his remarks earlier this evening, I think he perhaps might want to revisit that quotation, but I think it probably was. The then Prime Minister, my right honourable friend Boris Johnson, called it
“a great deal for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”,—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/19; col. 591]
but we are now trying to unpick it just as our negotiators, to whom I pay full tribute, are hoping to achieve the flexibility to alleviate the known concerns of all the communities in Northern Ireland, as well as the interests of the EU, the Republic of Ireland and the USA.
In considering the effects of our contributions today and bearing in mind the sensitivities, I hope nothing I say or others say will have harmed the progress being made. It would have been better if we had held off while the process is so active. However, we have had the chance to speak on the proposals in the Bill, and although it is inevitable that what I say will involve a lot of repetition of remarks made by others, I hope the Government will take note of all the remarks.
The Bill is unnecessary. Its provisions and the extra powers it gives to the Executive are unnecessary. At Second Reading in the other place, a long discussion took place as to whether necessity kept this measure within our international law obligations. The doctrine of necessity—noble Lords have heard from distinguished lawyers—requires a solid evidential base showing “grave and imminent peril” as a reason for such a measure. That, I would say, was not present at the time when the Bill was in the other place, and it certainly is not present now. To meet that test, there must be no alternative available. Here there is an abundance of alternatives, including the negotiations and Article 16.
In the other place, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, then the Foreign Secretary, cited the refusal of the EU to co-operate as evidence of necessity. That was, and is, in my view, incorrect. Otherwise, how are we in the current situation? The Government cited the opinion of mainly outside lawyers to support their proposals that seemed to ignore the views of their own First Treasury Counsel. If breaking international law is not of concern, then how could we lecture others such as Bolivia, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, South Sudan, Ethiopia and, of course, Russia and China?
What about Article 16? As my right honourable friend Theresa May said in the other place,
“Article 16 does not justify this Bill … Article 16 negates the legal justification for the Bill.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/22; col. 63.]
I agree. As long as we are negotiating, we do not currently need either Article 16 or this Bill.
My second concern is with regard to the extensive extra powers given to the Executive by the Bill. This is not the first time we have debated this trend. Trying to exclude proper parliamentary scrutiny of sensitive and important matters is undesirable. This Bill would have Henry VIII seething with envy. No less than 15 of the 26 clauses give the Executive new powers to amend Acts of Parliament, disapply part of the Northern Ireland protocol and increase secondary legislation to avoid scrutiny, and Clause 19, in particular, allows for a new deal with the EU without any primary legislation. This is a serious overreach by the Executive and our Ministers.
The current negotiations must be carried on in a calm manner, while recognising the fears and concerns of all those communities in Northern Ireland, which I greatly respect. The UK must retain its position as a trusted and responsible power in the world. Leading roles in the G7, the United Nations and with our European and American friends can exist only with adherence to a rules-based system, in which we, this country, set the example. There is great potential for this country, but the rule of law must always prevail.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, no one had proposed anything like the Northern Ireland protocol until the second half of 2017. It is worth recalling the genesis. I was a Member of the European Parliament at the time and following the negotiations. In the immediate aftermath of the referendum, no one in Brussels proposed that Northern Ireland should remain under EU jurisdiction for regulatory purposes. They understood that sovereign countries are not in the business of ceding part of their territory to foreign control. They understood that sovereign countries do not usually allow internal borders. All of the talk then was about finding technical solutions: Enda Kenny’s Government in Dublin negotiating in good faith with British authorities to try to find ways to keep the border open, on the basis that the UK and EU had pretty similar regulatory norms and could trust each other’s standards.
What changed? It was a very sudden moment, around October 2017. I remember Guy Verhofstadt coming to the Constitutional Affairs Committee with his customary self-satisfied grin, saying, “We have now made it part of our negotiating mandate that there must not be any change in the EU side of the single market regulations as pertaining to Northern Ireland.” What had changed? We all know the answer: what had changed was that, on 8 June 2017, there was a general election that altered the balance in the other place.
From then, it became clear that a majority of people in both Chambers here were not prepared to leave the European Union except on terms that Brussels liked. That was not the phrase they used; the phrase was that they would not “permit a no-deal Brexit”. But let us think about it for five seconds: that is exactly the same, is it not? So, of course, the European Union—not unreasonably; I do not blame them—started putting on the table all sorts of outlandish demands that, up until then, it had not occurred to them to make.
Plenty of people have said, “Parliament ought to assert itself in this situation.” That is fine, but it strikes me as a little inconsistent for noble Lords who were strongly in favour of this no-deal Brexit stance, who then, if you like, ensured that this treaty was signed under duress, now to turn around and say, “You told us it was a great treaty. How come you have changed your mind after three years?” It was signed in a moment of EU overreach and it was bound to be corrected when the majority in another place changed. I am bound to add that there is something slightly odd about saying, after three years of negotiations, “Shouldn’t we have a little bit more time to talk?” What do noble Lords think we have been doing for the last three years?
I would like to put a question. I am one of the last speakers; some 54 noble Lords have spoken and, as far as I can tell, no one has taken issue with the contents as set out by my noble friend the Minister. Noble Lords will correct me if I am wrong. The aims of the Bill are that companies in Northern Ireland that do not export should be free to follow either UK or EU regulation; that there should be a green channel so that goods not intended for onward export are not subject to additional checks or tests; that Northern Ireland should be part of the general principle of “no taxation without representation”; and that the treaty should be arbitrated in the same way as all other international accords. Are those unreasonable demands? I see a couple of Lib Dem Peers theatrically pulling Paxmanesque leers of incredulity. I shall, of course, give way.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way since he was obviously referring to me. I am wondering about the noble Lord’s assertion—a serious one: that Parliament was misled by the Prime Minister of the day; that the deal that they presented to Parliament was made under duress. We were not informed about that being the case, but that is the case that he is making. Is that correct?
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
There is absolutely no question that the Northern Ireland protocol would not have been agreed had there not been an anti-Brexit majority in another House that was saying in terms, and had taken the legislative agenda and legislated to say, that they would not permit Brexit to happen except on terms that Brussels liked.
I finish by saying that if there is a conflict between respecting the basis of the Good Friday agreement—which rests on the idea of devolution and power sharing—and an overseas treaty obligation, I hope that any British Government would pursue the former objective. That should go almost without saying. If we were not in this situation where a large chunk of the country will automatically want to side with the EU, whatever its position is, that would be an almost banal statement. If there is a conflict between the protocol and our obligation to the people of Northern Ireland, I hope that any British Government would honour their obligation to the people of Northern Ireland.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a fact that the protocol has downgraded Northern Ireland’s position within the union and left it out on a limb, subject to still being part of the EU single market. It is a fact that it leaves our fellow British citizens there subject to foreign laws and foreign courts and under the constant enforcement of new EU regulations, with businesses in Northern Ireland forced more and more to buy from the Irish Republic rather than Great Britain. Increased bureaucracy, staff resources, cost and delivery times have, as we all know, made many businesses refuse to trade in Northern Ireland.
For me, this is a very simple debate. Our Government decided that protecting the EU single market was more important than protecting the sovereignty of their own country and the internal market of the UK. The Irish Government made threats about the return of violence if there were ever customs posts or anything at the border. They got the EU to weaponise the border, and our Government then decided to put a border between parts of their own territory. Now they are recognising, quite rightly, that they got it wrong and it is not working. As the Prime Minister said at Second Reading:
“The reason why I am putting the Bill forward is that I am a patriot, and I am a democrat. Our No. 1 priority is protecting peace and political stability in Northern Ireland and protecting the Belfast … agreement.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/22; col. 45.]
We have heard much today about the Belfast agreement, but a great deal of it is a bit hypocritical. We constantly hear about protecting it in all its aspects and all its parts, but somehow the part whereby the principle of consent is supposed to protect the constitutional status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom is not mentioned by many. Where is the concern about those parts of the agreement when the protocol subjugates the Act of Union—not my words but those of the High Court judge in Belfast—which is the very constitutional basis of the United Kingdom, or when the protocol consent vote expressly disapplies cross-community consent in order to deprive the unionist community of that protection?
When many in your Lordships’ House and elsewhere talk about protecting the Belfast agreement, it seems to mean that they are concentrating on protecting the north-south aspect of it and the nationalist interests within it, yet the citizens in Northern Ireland, who put up with over 30 years of terrorists and everything that was put upon them because of their loyalty to the UK, seem to be ignored. How do we repay them for that loyalty? We do so by abandoning Northern Ireland and leaving it in the European Union single market.
Now, when the Government at long last bring forward a Bill to correct that historic and shameful injustice, we have Peers here in this House who want to torpedo it. They use the language of “pause”, which sounds much better than “torpedo”, but I ask those Peers: whose side are you on? We are Peers in the British Houses of Parliament who are here to represent our national interest, yet some seem to want to represent only the interests of the European Union.
This Bill finally gave hope to people in Northern Ireland, but unionists generally are not naive. We have been sold out before; we do not forget how our Government defended the subjugation of the Act of Union in court while at the same time saying publicly that they would fix the injustice. When we get to the Supreme Court in November, it will be very interesting to see if His Majesty’s Government take a very different view.
What other country would abandon sovereignty over a piece of its territory in this way? Have the Bill’s opponents no sense of patriotism or any care for national interest? Would Zelensky agree such a deal for the Donbass—ironically, described as the “Ulster of Ukraine”? I speak with anger today because I believe that you all need to understand what a grave injustice has been perpetrated on your fellow British citizens in Northern Ireland, and whether you like it or not, efforts to stop this Bill constitute taking a side; it is lining up with the European Union and the Irish Government, an Irish Government who stand up proudly for their nationalist community in Northern Ireland but demand that the British Government be neutral. It is betraying the British people that live there who have the fundamental right to equal citizenship.
I was ashamed when Parliament passed the grave injustice of the protocol. The only thing that will top that is sitting here, watching Peers wanting actively to try to keep Northern Ireland in captivity by preventing the progress of this Bill, which does nothing other than seek to restore Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom. On the breaking of international law—I think the noble Lord, Lord Bew, dealt with that brilliantly—while I accept the Attorney-General’s view, I care more about the fundamental constitutional law of the United Kingdom. After 300 hours of negotiations already, does anyone think that the EU will change its views if this House delays this Bill? It will not even widen Šefčovič’s mandate. I believe that it will be helping to put an end to power sharing in Northern Ireland possibly for ever. No self-respecting unionist will return to Stormont until the protocol is removed. As for those who are attacking the DUP, I look to see whether they attacked Sinn Féin when it took Parliament down in Stormont for three years.
Already we have no north-south ministerial councils, no Executive and no Assembly. How can anyone argue that the protocol is not a threat to the Belfast agreement? Please remember that when you vote tonight.
I finish by paraphrasing one of the greatest men to sit in our Parliament, Sir Edward Carson: “There are none so loathsome as those who will sell their friends for the purposes of conciliating their enemies.” Sadly, that is true just as much today as it was over 100 years ago.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I am totally opposed to this Bill. I do not like the idea of “excluded” provisions in it, with this meaning that they would no longer apply in domestic law. These would include provisions dealing with customs and movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, state aid and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over the protocol. The Bill would give Ministers delegated powers to change which parts of the protocol would be “excluded provision” in domestic law. They would also have delegated powers to make new law in connection with the protocol, such as on the movement and regulation of goods. The wide scope of these powers has been criticised by our House of Lords Delegated Powers Committee, which has recommended that many of them be removed from the Bill.
The Government have argued that the Bill is needed because the protocol is failing to achieve its objectives and has led to disruption to the economy and challenges to political stability in Northern Ireland. They say that discussions with the EU over many months have not resulted in any agreement to change the protocol.
In proceedings in the other place, Simon Hoare, chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, said that the Office of Speaker’s Counsel had provided a legal opinion to his committee that
“raises enormous concerns about this Bill’s legality”.
He said that the Bill was based on arguments that were
“flimsy at best and irrational at worst”
and that the Bill risked “economically harmful retaliation” and
“shredding our reputation as a guardian of international law.”
Julian Smith, a former Northern Ireland Secretary, feared that the Bill was
“a kind of displacement activity from the core task of doing whatever we can to negotiate a better protocol deal”.
He said that it risked
“creating an impression to Unionism that a black-and-white solution is available when the reality is that … compromise will ultimately be needed”.
At the same time, he feared the Bill risked “toxifying further” discussions with the EU as well as
“prolonging instability for Northern Ireland business, not to mention putting the whole of the UK at risk of trade and tariff reprisals”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/22; cols. 55-70.]
At the heart of the NIP Bill is the interpretation of the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday agreement by the UK Government. While it seems to some that constructive ambiguity is the most essential feature of that 1998 agreement, this approach is much harder to apply to the issues arising from Brexit. What the UK Government have to face as a consequence of leaving the single market is a choice as to where EU checks and controls on the movement of goods should apply.
The Northern Ireland protocol, signed in January 2020 by the EU and the UK Government, was a compromise that followed lengthy and detailed negotiations which had produced no better option. Finding a realistic and practical way ahead now depends on being able to identify the real problems that need to be addressed, taking account of the constitutional position of Northern Ireland and understanding how the present real difficulties relating to this developed.
The NIP Bill is said to be essential because unionist opposition to the protocol is preventing the operation of the institutions created under the Good Friday agreement. However, the issue of the checks and controls on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland was known and understood when the protocol was adopted. The UK Government have given contradictory signals about that issue. Unionists claim they were promised unfettered access for goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but there is no way that any such promise could be reconciled either with the protocol itself or with the agreements reached in December 2020 on how it would be applied. Hence, I fear the UK Government have clearly contributed to the sense of grievance strongly felt by many unionists over the protocol.
In claiming to address the issue of unionist disengagement through the NIP Bill, the UK Government have in my view adopted a one-sided analysis of the Good Friday agreement. While arguing that the Bill is needed to uphold that agreement, the solution it seeks to impose does not take into account the views of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland who are not opposed to the protocol, nor would it have the agreement of the EU or the Irish Republic Government.
The EU made significant concessions in 2021 to try to make progress in sorting out the problems arising from the protocol for the UK. These included less onerous checks on lorries transporting different food products. A business importing products of animal origin into Northern Ireland from Great Britain will also no longer be subject to the same level of checks and controls. Certain products that are generally prohibited from import into the EU will now be allowed to be imported into Northern Ireland from Great Britain, subject to them carrying certificates for which specific models will be provided. A Northern Ireland business buying goods from Great Britain will have a much simpler process of customs clearance. A smaller Northern Ireland business importing wood and other raw materials from the UK will have much simpler customs formalities. Food manufacturers and retailers exporting from the UK to Northern Ireland will also have simpler or no customs formalities. Finally, British wholesalers of medicines will be able to continue to supply Northern Ireland from the current British base without relocating infrastructure. I am glad to read that protocol negotiations have resumed and hope that the Government really take on board these concessions.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, in a recent speech the vice-president of the European Commission, Maroš Šefčovič, said:
“You may not hear this often from a European Commissioner, but it is high time we got Brexit done”.
The irony of this Government’s position on the protocol and this Bill is that they seek to overturn an instrument that was part of the package their party so triumphantly said got Brexit done—whatever rewriting of history we have heard tonight. Perhaps Mr Šefčovič’s answer came last Friday when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Chris Heaton-Harris, said:
“I want to be very positive about the chances of getting a negotiated solution. We are working in good spirits and in good cooperation … We need to show some progress on that”.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, reminded us that the gap is pretty small. The noises are hopeful and these Benches urge a rapid and constructive result to the negotiations on possible adjustments to the implementation of the protocol, instead of this unacceptable unilateral abrogation of a treaty.
I note that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, referred to “technical talks”, which makes the point that the protocol is not being reopened. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, spoke of the impasse in the wider UK-EU relationship, not least the blockage of our access to Horizon, a very unfortunate spillover. The original mistake was pursuing the hardest of hard Brexits and cutting the UK out of the single market and customs union, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, emphasised. Let us hope that sense will prevail on that score in years to come.
But that original mistake of policy was accompanied by a complete absence of integrity. As my noble friend Lord Bruce said, it was starkly clear that “Get Brexit Done” was a great electoral slogan for a weary electorate, but at its heart it was, and is, a deliberate deception. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford recalled that Mr Johnson advised traders to throw paperwork into the bin. So, when the Government now complain of the protocol’s “unnecessary checks and paperwork” and “burdensome bureaucracy”, we are entitled to point out that this was their sovereign choice. But, as my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed recalled, Liberal Democrats, along with our partners in the Alliance Party, were ridiculed and condemned when we repeatedly warned of the implications of the protocol for trade and business. Professor Katy Hayward of Queen’s University Belfast said:
“This is a bill that is purportedly intended to protect the 1998 Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement, but as it stands it looks set to bring new levels of economic and political uncertainty for Northern Ireland”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, said, the present uncertainty is destabilising.
My noble friend Lady Suttie pointed out that the Bill is not something that the majority of people in Northern Ireland or the business community actually want. My noble friend Lady Doocey drew attention to the problem that a dual regulatory regime would cause for dairy farmers, since, if animal feed from the EU and the UK were mixed up, it would be impossible for vets to certify that an animal’s milk genuinely met EU standards. In fact, a dual regime may lighten the red tape load on GB exporters, but it will increase it on Northern Ireland businesses, and all the loose talk about regulatory divergence can only make matters worse.
If the internal market Bill would have broken international law in a “very specific and limited” way, the current Bill’s breach of it is absolutely blatant and comprehensive. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, dealt fully with this subject, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier—all of them distinguished lawyers. The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, recalled that Margaret Thatcher was committed to the rule of law.
It has been pointed out that Article 16 provides a legal mechanism for safeguard measures within the scope of the protocol, but the Government have declined to use this, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said. He recounted how the former Attorney-General told him that Article 16 was not being invoked because it only allows measures that are “proportionate”. For a country such as the United Kingdom, with its web of treaties and global connections both public and private, to be so cavalier about breaking international law is a very serious error and reputational own goal. Who in the world will trust our Government and even our businesses to keep their word in future? The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, was eloquent on this point.
The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, warned that this is a very dangerous time internationally and a moment for unity and solidarity in the alliance backing Ukraine, not divisions between the UK and the EU. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, warned of the effect on the financial markets. The noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord McDonald, noted the welcome reset in relations with the EU, with Prime Minister Liz Truss, when taking part in the inaugural meeting of the European Political Community, even able to bring herself to call President Macron a “friend”. This welcome reset would be torpedoed by this hostile Bill, and the mooted bilateral UK-France summit for next summer would surely go in the bin. With our economy in a very fragile position, the last thing we need is a trade war with the EU, and the last thing that Northern Irish traders need is the loss of ready access to the EU single market.
Other noble Lords have adequately covered how the Bill represents an almighty power grab by the Executive, as have the excellent reports from our Delegated Powers Committee, so I will not repeat that point. However, I will quote the Conservative chairman of the Justice Select Committee in the other place, Sir Bob Neill, who said,
“the reality is that there are Henry VIII powers and Henry VIII powers; and this is Henry VIII, the six wives, Cardinal Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell all thrown in together”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/22; col. 370.]
I also point—as did a stellar quartet of the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie, Lady O’Loan, Lady Kennedy and Lady Goudie—to the very legitimate concerns of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland about the impact of the Bill on the implementation of Article 2 of the protocol, the commitment by the UK Government to ensure
“no diminution of rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity”
protections as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. If the Bill progresses, that will need detailed examination.
I conclude with what the former Prime Minister Theresa May said in the other place—words widely echoed across this House today, including by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope:
“In thinking about the Bill, I started by asking myself three questions. First, do I consider it to be legal under international law? Secondly, will it achieve its aims? Thirdly, does it at least maintain the standing of the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world? My answer to all three questions is no. That is even before we look at the extraordinarily sweeping powers that the Bill would give to Ministers.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/22; col. 63.]
We have two previous Conservative female Prime Ministers, Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May: one who cannot now give her opinion but would surely not have approved of this Bill, and another who has said that she does not approve of this Bill. The most recent previous Prime Minister did his Government and country no favours in bringing it forward. In words he might have spoken, it is time for the present Prime Minister to “donnez-nous un break”—indeed, to give herself a break by ditching it.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Chapman dealt with some of the political and practical considerations of this Bill, and a number of speakers have since mentioned the important challenges in relation to legality, precedent and the UK’s reputation as an actor operating in good faith. The noble Lords, Lord Howard, Lord Pannick and Lord McDonald of Salford, my noble friends Lord Bach, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lord Triesman and many other noble Lords have commented on the legality of the Government’s position. However, we cannot forget how the protocol came into force in the first place: the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and his then boss, Boris Johnson, decided that this was the solution to the question of Northern Ireland’s future. Three years ago, the Government had a large majority of 80 and this was presented as a solution to Parliament. The UK signed the protocol, as well as committing in Article 4 of the withdrawal agreement to ensuring that domestic law is consistent with the agreements made, only to claim post ratification that it was only ever intended as a stop-gap until something better could be agreed.
As the Bill gives powers to UK Ministers unilaterally to override the terms of the protocol, it cannot possibly be consistent with the UK’s obligations under international law. The Government lean on the doctrine of necessity, as we have heard, but there are severe doubts, as we have also heard, about their legal position. Indeed, some government lawyers were asked for only a selective opinion on the protocol, and other lawyers were not consulted at all. The doctrine cannot possibly apply to a state in cases where the necessity has been brought about—even partly—by the state’s own actions. That point was made brilliantly by a number of speakers.
The now Lord Chancellor famously said that the internal markets Bill, which is of course related to the protocol, broke the law in only a “limited and specific way”. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, referred to this in his powerful speech. I sit as a magistrate at Westminster Magistrates’ Court and if, on a Monday morning after a busy weekend and as the cells are emptied, a defendant came in front of me and said that he had broken the law in only a “limited and specific way”, I would take that as a plea of guilty and would sentence accordingly.
Nobody thinks the protocol is perfect but, as my noble friend Lady Chapman and others observed, the majority of Northern Ireland businesses have confidence in it. Our concern is that by acting unilaterally, the Government run the risk of harming the economy and destabilising community relations. I pay tribute to two noble Lords who will not be expecting me to pay tribute to them. One is the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, and the other the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. Both gave very thoughtful speeches about the practical destabilising provisions of the Bill.
The political situation in Northern Ireland is well known. It is difficult, which is why the Government should have been seeking a negotiated outcome all this time, as well as engaging with all communities in Northern Ireland about the future they want to see. We welcome the more productive tone witnessed in recent UK-EU discussions and hope that, as a result of that shift, Northern Ireland will soon have a functioning political system. Residents want their concerns about the cost of living, public services and other matters addressed, a point very ably made by my noble friend Lady Ritchie.
I want to comment on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Frost. He was very explicit when he addressed the House that he wants the Bill to provide a “walk away” option for the Government. He repeated that phrase several times. I want to give the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, an opportunity to say whether he recognises the Bill as providing a “walk away” option. His noble friend Lord Ahmad was not so explicit when introducing the Bill. I want to comment, as somebody who has done many business-type negotiations, that I have never entered a business negotiation where I accented the “walk away” option. It may have been in the background, but it was not something I said when I wanted a successful negotiation. I think it is the wrong approach.
In his comments the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, seemed to downplay the importance of the US and President Biden’s interest in the Bill. It may be interesting for the noble Lord if I tell him that at the Labour Party conference, I was lobbied by US diplomats on this Bill. That did not happen by accident; it happened because they were very concerned.
Moving on, we have been given a number of concrete assurances during the passage of earlier Bills that this or that piece of retained EU law would be protected, yet now the Government have set a hard deadline for revoking some regulations. With that in mind, it seems that we can no more accept assurances about the use of delegated powers than our international partners can when UK Ministers put their signatures to binding agreements.
My noble friend Lady Chapman described the Bill as an insult to our political and legal traditions. We have heard, from both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that we will not be voting on their amendments tonight, but I very much hope that there will be constructive discussions across the House as we move towards Committee.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by expressing my appreciation for the very large number of thoughtful and informed contributions we have heard during this debate. It has been an honour to have heard it and now to become a part of it. It has grappled with not only the grave political and constitutional matters before us but has cited the Marquess of Salisbury, by my noble friend Lady Nicholson, Montesquieu and The Spirit of the Laws by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice” by my noble friend Lord Moylan and that peerless advocate and exemplary parliamentarian Sir Edward Carson by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. The debate also heard the expression “Piss off” used by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, which I had perhaps not anticipated hearing in a debate in your Lordships’ House.
On behalf of the whole House, I am sure, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and others on the loss to our counsels constituted by the death of Lord Trimble. I also echo his comments on the loss to Lord Trimble’s community, the whole of Northern Ireland and his family.
Before I turn to the points raised by various noble Lords, I will briefly restate the reasons for introducing the Bill. The Northern Ireland protocol was agreed with the best of intentions, to ensure that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was protected in all its dimensions as the United Kingdom left the European Union. The departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, put it so trenchantly, a UK matter. It is not to be balkanised in terms of how it played out in London, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. It is a United Kingdom matter.
But in its practical operation, the protocol is causing practical problems for people and businesses in Northern Ireland, including disruption and diversion to east-west trade. That disruption is present in the rest of the United Kingdom and it is causing significant costs and bureaucracy for businesses and traders.
Moreover, political life in Northern Ireland is, as your Lordships have heard on numerous occasions, built on compromise and power sharing across communities. However, as noble Lords have also heard, the protocol does not have the support of all communities in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, was but the first to explore this point. As a result, we are seeing political and social stress in Northern Ireland, including the non-functioning of the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. It is clear that the protocol is putting strain on the delicate balance inherent in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
It remains the Government’s preference to reach a negotiated agreement on the protocol. I could not associate myself more with the comments from all sides of your Lordships’ House—the noble Lords, Lord Triesman and Lord Bach, on the Benches opposite, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and my noble friend Lord Tugendhat—on the importance of negotiation and the hopes the Government have that it will ultimately bear fruit. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has reiterated this. He and Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič have agreed that officials should meet to discuss technical solutions. The Bill contains provisions to implement any future negotiated agreement with the European Union. I can give an assurance at this stage to my noble friend Lord Frost that we are clear that negotiations must be able to address the full range of serious issues caused by the protocol. The Bill is set up to enable us to do precisely that.
In answer to a point raised quite early in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, our EU partners and friends are aware of this Bill. They are aware that negotiations continue and recognise that there are problems to resolve.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean spoke early in the debate about the manner in which the protocol has been operated. I will revert to that point when I discuss, at a level I think appropriate to Second Reading, the implications of the Government’s stance for international law. However, I must stress to your Lordships’ House that the problems created by the protocol are urgent and require swift action. The Taoiseach, the Irish Premier, said publicly last week that the protocol as it was originally designed was a little too strict. These problems are of long standing and we now seek to address them. But while we engage in dialogue with the European Union, we must also ensure that we have covered all bases and that the United Kingdom Government have the ability to implement durable solutions in any scenario.
I now propose to turn to some of the specific themes and questions raised in this evening’s debate. I do that against the undertaking that if I should fail to refer specifically to the contributions of any of your Lordships or fail to give consideration to any of your Lordships’ arguments proper to this stage of Second Reading, I am happy to engage with your Lordships in writing or in person in the corridors of this place, or for that matter, elsewhere.
The matter that featured most strongly in your Lordships’ deliberations today arose out of the matter of international law and the argument from necessity. The Government have already published a statement of their legal position on the Bill and their position is that it is lawful and necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, from the Cross Benches and my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate seemed to suggest to your Lordships that the voice of the legal profession was as one in saying that this was not the case. That is not so. The Government have a worked-out position in international law and there is no reason why we should not take it forward.
The United Kingdom exercised its sovereign choice to leave the European Union single market and customs union. I discern that that course was not universally approved by your Lordships’ House. But the peril that has emerged was not inherent in the protocol’s provision. As to the universal opposition, which some of the contributors to this debate seemed to throw up, it is in the nature of law that it is often adversarial. It is in the nature of law that parties will have different approaches, just as it is in the nature of sincere friendship that sincere friends will often disagree, even on the most fundamental matters.
The strain that the arrangements under the protocol are placing on political institutions in Northern Ireland, and more generally on socio-political conditions, will leave the Government with no option but to take action if they cannot reach a negotiated solution with the European Union.
I listened with great interest to the comments as to law made not only by the many distinguished lawyers on the Benches of this place but from lay people concerned about the implications of the step that the Government were proposing to take. Opening for the Opposition from the Front Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, began more correctly—or less wrongly—by saying that it was “likely” that this would amount to a breach of international law. Then she recovered the party line and said that it did breach international law. The curiosity was that I think that the lay people contributing to this debate about international law were, in fact, nearer to the truth than distinguished commentators such as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, or my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne, because the fact of the matter is that it is not possible—
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I hear the noble Lord and will revert to him in due course. It is not possible to equiparate international law with domestic law. There is simply not enough of it and it is too dependent on facts and circumstances which will not apply from case to case to come up with a precedent which would allow noble Lords who have spoken in these terms to speak with such certainty.
Should I address the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, at this stage? At an early stage in these proceedings, he spoke about the nature of the plea to necessity. I say again that it is very different from the interpretation of a domestic statute. Of course in international law there are similarities with domestic legislation, and of course in international law, often being a matter of paction, there are similarities with the law of contract. But it cannot be equiparated with, to use a metaphor that emerged from the Cross Benches, a contract for the sale of sausages. It is too complex and too fact-specific. That point was continued by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, my noble friends Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Lady Altmann and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier—I am sure that I have missed others out; as I said, my undertaking is to engage with your Lordships to assist them in moving this forward—and, I decipher from my scrawl, the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford, speaking from the Cross Benches. The assertion that the Government’s position breaches international law is too bold and lacking in nuance. I submit that we are entitled to proceed on the basis that we anticipate that the protocol will be operated in a manner that reflects the unique and serious circumstances against which it was drawn up.
The doctrine of necessity was approached by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and my noble friend Lord Hannay of Chiswick in particular, who equiparated—if I misattribute this to my noble friend, I apologise to him and will happily correct it—invocation of the doctrine of necessity with the law of President Putin. Far from it: there is authority for the existence of a defence of necessity dating back at least to the early 19th century. It was recognised by the International Court of Justice in 1997 in a case between Slovakia and Hungary regarding a dam on the Danube. It formed part of the International Law Commission’s articles on state responsibility, drawn up in 2001, as the Government’s statement on their legal position notes. In 1995, the Government of Canada justified steps taken to protect the Grand Banks fisheries on the basis that it was necessary to do so. If fisheries in the Atlantic are important, how much more so is the extension of democratic rights across the whole of this United Kingdom?
Invoking the doctrine of necessity does not repudiate international law or the international rules-based order. It is part of the international rules-based order. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and my noble friend Lord Tugendhat stated that the Government were undermining the rule of law and that this constituted a flagrant breach of the rule of law. Again, by invoking the doctrine of necessity, we operate within the framework of international law and—
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
Is not my noble and learned friend rather missing the point? None of us has suggested that the doctrine of necessity plays no part in international law. What we are saying is that it is not justified by the Government’s approach in this particular instance.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I respond to my noble friend by saying that the assertions that it breaches international law simply cannot be determined at this point because it is a matter of exploring the complex background of facts and circumstances, including the manner in which the protocol has been operated.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
Can the Minister define in a few words what the necessity is in this particular instance?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I think it would be wrong of me at this stage in the Second Reading to engage in a deeper debate. I refer the noble Lord to the terms of the legal statement issued by the Government.
On the diminution of rights which were raised among your Lordships, I return to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Moylan and indeed by other Members of your Lordships’ House from Northern Ireland: what are we to say of the diminution of rights which strips from citizens of this country the right to make laws? Must we not look to that? At present, the circumstances of Northern Ireland strip our fellow countrymen of that right.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I will not give way at this stage.
An argument which was deployed by some of your Lordships, beginning with the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, and continued by my noble friend Lord Northbrook, was that by these steps the Government are damaging the trust in the United Kingdom among its international partners. There is no reason why this legislation should damage trust among our international partners. The Government want to move past issues with the protocol and focus on the key global challenges, such as those emanating from the current Government of Russia. As regards this country’s standing in the world at large, people furth of this country will look to the unhesitating support offered by this country to a democratic state imperilled by an aggressive neighbour and take that as the badge and measure of this country’s approach.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, again, with the utmost respect, I decline to give way to the noble Baroness. She has my assurance that I will engage with her.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I hear the noble Lord; I will not give way.
It remains the Government’s preference to reach a negotiated agreement on the protocol, and further discussions are now under way with our European Union counterparts with the aim of identifying shared solutions. I can give my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering repeated assurance of the importance of negotiation. We will continue to work closely with the European Union on the crisis of Ukraine, as we will with the United States and with all friendly powers and democracies throughout the world. We have always said that we want to fix the problems created by the protocol, in part so that we can focus our full collective energy on global challenges such as these.
The point was taken up at various points during the debate that the Bill threatens Northern Ireland access to Ireland and to the wider European Union single market. I stand before your Lordships in place of my noble friend Lord Caine, who I feel is far better equipped to answer these questions, drawing on his extensive experience of affairs in Northern Ireland. Again, he will undertake to engage with noble Lords on that point. Any perception of risk posed to the EU single market can be managed through market surveillance activities delivered by relevant United Kingdom bodies which will continue to prevent, deter and remove non-compliant and unsafe activity to protect the consumers of both the United Kingdom and EU markets. Market surveillance will follow the risk-based and intelligence-led approach as it does at present. As we have said all long, our preference is for a negotiated solution, and we stand ready to discuss appropriate assurances with the European Union.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, Lady Doocey and Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, raised matters specific to agribusiness and dairy farming in particular. Again, I offer the House assurance that negotiations continue.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Frost for his account of the current economic situation and his summary of the historical situation in 2009 which my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere joined with his customary brio and, in the process, released a cat among the Liberal Democrat pigeons. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, whom I took to adopt the historical summary which my noble friend Lord Frost advanced.
I come next to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, who again very early in the debate raised the important point of an impact assessment. As the noble Lord pointed out, the Bill does not have an impact assessment. The full details of the new regime will be set out in regulations alongside and under the Bill, including economic impacts where appropriate.
Since the Bill was introduced, we have consulted extensively with businesses and other key shareholders on the underlying details of the regime to ensure that it is as smooth and as operable as possible. The Government are getting on with that task now.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, seemed to invoke the concept of historical inevitability in his contribution towards the end of the debate. I am no Marxist but I am by no means clear that his exercise in foresight in relation to society in Northern Ireland will prove to be accurate.
A matter of grave and, if I may say, fully appropriate interest to your Lordships is that of the breadth of the Henry VIII powers. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, my noble friend Lord Northbrook, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, once again, my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, in particular, raised these matters, and I apologise to other noble Lords whom I have not mentioned by name.
The Bill provides specific powers to make new law where we are disapplying the EU regime and where such law is appropriate to make the Bill’s regime work. These powers are restricted. They can be used only in connection with certain provisions and subject matter of the protocol, for example changing valued added tax rules in Northern Ireland.
It is important to emphasise that we are engaged in negotiations. We are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, said, engaging in blackmail; nor are negotiations, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, engaged in attempting to bully the European Union; and nor, as my noble friend Lady Altmann suggested, have we by this proposal become an elected dictatorship.
These provisions are necessary. They allow the Government to act as quickly as possible to deliver new policy arrangements, for example to introduce the green and red lane for traders. Since the Bill was introduced in June this year, the Government have consulted extensively. There have been over 100 bespoke sessions with over 250 businesses, business representative organisations and regulators.
I am being warned once again: noble Lords will doubtless be glad to see the back of me. The steps which we are taking are necessary to reflect the unique and dynamic situation in which the Bill passed in the other place.
In conclusion—
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The Government have not triggered Article 16—from early in the debate, I note my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne. The position is that it would not solve the radical, fundamental problems with the protocol. It would treat only some symptoms without fixing those root causes. As my noble friend Lord Moylan explained to your Lordships, the problem lies in the protocol and not in its application.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
It would appear that I am losing the House’s patience.
The Bill allows the Government to implement lasting and durable solutions to the existing problems with the Northern Ireland protocol. While we remain committed to exploring shared solutions with the European Union, it is critical that we retain the ability to take action on the very real and urgent problems inherent in the protocol. I hope that noble Lords will recognise this and act in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland by voting with the Government for the Bill. I am obliged to your Lordships.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, we have had a very long debate. I have heard every single word of it because I have not been out of the Chamber. I will be very brief.
All I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench is that there were 59 speakers, 40 of whom were troubled and against the Bill and 19 of whom were in favour of it, including government Ministers. I urge my noble friends please to consider carefully what has been said: consider what has been said about the emasculation of Parliament; consider what has been said about alienating friends at a time when we need them most of all, in a dangerous world; and please, before Committee begins, realise that there is deep disquiet throughout this House and in many quarters of the Conservative Party—I think I heard 10 speeches on this subject. Please can my noble friends talk and consider, and remember that decisions made in haste are not always the best decisions—that was really the subtext of the speech made by my noble friend Lord Frost.
I will not trouble the House further. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington
At end insert “but that this House regrets that His Majesty’s Government have introduced legislation which is widely perceived to breach the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law; further regrets that they have proposed unparalleled delegated powers to be exercised by Ministers of the Crown, which could be used to undermine international law and which would be subject to little or no parliamentary scrutiny; calls attention to the serious concerns expressed by the Northern Ireland business community and the majority of members of the Northern Ireland Assembly over the contents of the Bill; notes that the Bill contradicts the policy platform endorsed by the electorate at the 2019 General Election; therefore calls on His Majesty's Government to prioritise a negotiated solution with the European Union, and to pursue existing legal options to resolve outstanding issues around the operation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland; and further calls on His Majesty’s Government to consider and report to the House on whether pausing this legislation would be beneficial to the progress of those negotiations or other processes”.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Cormack
At end insert “and that the Committee should meet not until 18 April 2023, or until His Majesty’s Government has reached a negotiated settlement with the European Union, whichever is earlier”.