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, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)
We are investing an additional £2.3 billion a year by 2023-24 so that 2 million more people can access NHS-funded mental health support.
Rachel Hopkins
Research by the Royal College of Psychiatrists shows that between July 2021 and July 2022, referrals to child and adolescent mental health services increased by 24%. Labour has set out a fully costed plan to recruit 8,500 new staff. Why have the Government failed to produce their own plan to recruit more mental health staff to reduce waiting times?
Steve Barclay
We are recruiting more mental health workers, with 7,400 more full-time equivalents in September 2022 compared with September 2021. That reflects the significant additional funding we are providing—the extra £2.3 billion going in by 2023-24.
Jeff Smith
Perinatal mental health problems affect one in four new or expectant mothers, and 40% of deaths in the first year after pregnancy are related to mental health. What steps are the Government taking to improve support for women with perinatal mental health needs, particularly in the light of the women’s health strategy?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important subject. As well as the additional investment and extra workforce we are putting into mental health, we are looking at this issue as part of our strategies in other areas—for example, our suicide strategy—and examining our capital investment. There is a range of measures to address this very important issue.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is aware of the evidence on the use of psychedelic drugs for more effective mental health care. Last month Australia, having assessed the evidence on psilocybin, started the rescheduling process, and Australians suffering from depression will be able to access this medicine from July. In the USA, the Food and Drug Administration has recognised psilocybin as a breakthrough therapy for depression. In Canada, the special access programme allows physicians to request a licence for assisted therapy under certain conditions. Our drug laws remain based on a 50-year-old, unevidenced, prejudiced assessment and nothing else. The Home Office has never commissioned evidence on psilocybin. Does my right hon. Friend understand that this is a primary public health issue, on which he should lead?
Steve Barclay
I recognise the close interest my hon. Friend takes in this matter, and he is right to draw the House’s attention to international best practice. I agree that we should take an evidence-based approach in which we look at the data shared with regulators in other countries, such as Australia. I am happy to draw the point he makes to the attention of our regulators.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Anorexia affects many young people. One of my constituents had to give up work to look after her daughter, who was diagnosed with anorexia nervosa and made a number of attempts to overdose—the latest just two weeks ago. The daughter is also suspected to be suffering from an obsessive compulsive disorder and an autism spectrum disorder, but has been told that the wait for diagnosis is over two years. Will my right hon. Friend outline what support we can give my constituent and her family? Have we thought about providing personal budgets, so that if the NHS is unable to treat an individual, they can seek treatment outside the NHS?
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend raises an important issue, and I am happy to look into the individual case she describes. Our wider objective in providing extra funding is to ensure that we treat more people, with 2 million more people accessing NHS-funded mental health support by 2023-24 and the number of patients in talking therapies last year up by a fifth from the year before.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
There is a mental health staffing crisis of the Government’s own making. Figures out last week show that there are more than 28,000 mental health vacancies in our NHS, which is up on the year before and the year before that. Are we seeing a pattern here? The number of mental health nurses is down 5% since 2010, but do not worry, Mr Speaker: just so the Secretary of State is aware, Labour has a plan to recruit and retain more mental health staff and to get waiting times down. Can he put a word in with the Chancellor in case he wants to nick that too?
Steve Barclay
It is always good to find a plan that the hon. Lady actually agrees with the shadow Health Secretary on. As we know from her questions, that is not always the case, not least on the use of the independent sector. What we do know is that she has a habit of writing her questions before she hears the previous answer. I just reminded the House of the 7,400 more staff in mental health in September 2022 compared with September 2021. Obviously she had written her question before that point.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I thank the UK Commission on Bereavement and everyone who contributed their experience of bereavement for their input into the report. We are working across Government and with the bereavement sector to consider how the wide range of findings from the report can inform future policy and make a difference to those who are bereaved.
Matt Warman
When my parents died just six weeks apart from each other, I know I would have benefited from practical and emotional support. The UK Commission on Bereavement has a number of excellent recommendations. Does the Minister agree that, among those, the idea of integrating support and information about bereavement into palliative care and end-of-life care is one that the Government should look at taking up?
Maria Caulfield
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who has done so much work in this space campaigning for others to have a better experience than he had with the tragic loss of his parents. I can give him an absolute commitment that we are working with partners across health and palliative care to ensure that bereavement support is an integral part of palliative and end-of-life practice. The new Health and Care Act 2022 means that integrated care boards must commission those services, and NHS England has published new statutory guidance on palliative and end-of-life care to give ICBs the information they need, which includes giving bereavement support to those facing a loss.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)
We have opened five new medical schools in Sunderland, Lancashire, Chelmsford, Lincoln and Canterbury as part of our wider drive to increase the number of doctors.
John Stevenson
Does the Secretary of State agree, first, that we must train enough of our own doctors, rather than depend on overseas doctors? Secondly, does he agree that it is important that the less traditional educational institutions are allowed to open or expand medical schools, as they are often in areas where doctors are in short supply?
Steve Barclay
I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why we had a 25% increase in the total number of medical school places. On the specific point he raises, we have developed the new apprenticeship route for medical doctors so that we can start to have more training through that route and not just through the undergraduate route.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
As well as recruiting doctors, how do we retain doctors? A doctor in my constituency says that at the end of the day he takes home £100 a week. That is less than a decorator. What are the Government doing about retaining good doctors like my constituent?
Steve Barclay
It is worth pointing out to the House that the vacancy rate for doctors has fallen compared with where it was before the pandemic. That is often not the narrative that is put out there, but the right hon. Lady is right to highlight the importance of retention. It is obviously better to retain a doctor, given the cost and time it takes to recruit, and that is about looking at a combination of pay issues, about which we are talking to trade union colleagues, and non-pay issues, which are often a real factor in the quality of work that doctors are doing and often shapes retention issues.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I am afraid that talk is cheap. I was at Worcester University’s medical school yesterday, where I was told directly by the vice-chancellor that that university, which has great facilities, can only recruit international students because the Government will not fund places for domestic students. The NHS has asked for medical school places to be doubled. Labour has a plan to double medical school places, paid for by abolishing the non-dom tax status. Why do the Government not swallow their pride and adopt Labour’s plan in next week’s Budget?
Steve Barclay
First, as I said a moment ago, we are funding a 25% increase in medical undergraduate places, and we have given a commitment to a workforce plan, as the Chancellor set out in the autumn statement. The question that the shadow Secretary of State should address is his party’s opposition to international recruitment. We have more than 45,000 doctors who have been recruited internationally, yet the Leader of the Opposition says he wants to move away from international recruitment, which is an important source of additional doctors.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
There are 60,000 suspected cardiac arrests every year, and I want more people to survive them. That is why we are increasing the number of defibrillators around the county. We now have over 46,000 defibrillators in England, and in December we announced a new £1 million community defibrillators fund to boost that number by at least 1,000.
Mary Glindon
I am pleased that the Government have committed to a £1 million fund to increase the number of defibrillators in the community. However, 72% of sudden cardiac arrests take place in the home, less affluent areas have lower access to public defibrillators and access is difficult in rural areas. Will the Minister make it her policy to require all new buildings, including residential accommodation, to have a defibrillator in the same way that smoke alarms are required?
Helen Whately
A specific objective of the community defibrillators fund is to make sure that defibrillators are installed in places where they are most needed, particularly places where there is higher footfall, as well as places where people are at greater risk of cardiac arrest. That is appropriate to make sure that we have defibrillators where they are most needed, so that we can reduce the number of people dying from cardiac arrest.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
Two great organisations in Peterborough, Gemma’s Hearts and the Brotherhood Foundation, exist to try to place more defibrillators in the community, such as those at the Lime Tree pub in Walton and the Chestnuts community centre in Eastfield. How will the community defibrillators fund work with voluntary organisations such as the two that I have mentioned to ensure that we have equitable access across places like Peterborough?
Helen Whately
It is fantastic to hear about organisations in my hon. Friend’s community that, like many around the country, are acting at the grassroots to increase the number of defibrillators. Very soon, we will publish the criteria for the fund that I have just announced, opening it up for bids from organisations such as those, and I look forward to bids from them.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)
The Government are committed to building 40 new hospitals, which is why we have confirmed an initial £3.7 billion for the first four years of the new hospital programme.
David Simmonds
One of those 40 new hospitals is Hillingdon Hospital. At the start of this year, Hillingdon Council granted planning consent for the proposed new hospital, which is much awaited by my constituents. Will my right hon. Friend tell me when we might expect building work to commence?
Steve Barclay
As my hon. Friend knows, I have been to Hillingdon to look at the scheme. I am aware of how essential it is to his local area. He will know that on 22 February, the Prime Minister spoke at Prime Minister’s questions of the Government’s commitment to building 40 new hospitals, and I hope to announce something on that very shortly.
Afzal Khan
The conditions at North Manchester General Hospital continue to worsen. Last month, theatres were forced to close for six weeks following a ceiling collapse. It is four years since the Government announced the rebuild under the new hospital programme, but little progress has been made. In January, the leader of Manchester City Council wrote to the Secretary of State offering to host a meeting to discuss the project. Will he commit to accepting the invitation?
Steve Barclay
I or another member of the ministerial team will, of course, meet the leader of Manchester council to discuss this. We are making progress. The hon. Gentleman will have seen progress, for example, at the Royal Liverpool and the Northern Centre for Cancer Care, but I confirm our commitment to the 40 hospitals programme and hope to say more on that shortly.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I heard the responses from the Secretary of State, and it must be really hard for him to keep up the pretence about these mythical hospitals. Here is the reality of what is happening in hospitals around the country. South Tyneside District Hospital was award winning. Despite widespread opposition from all of us at the Save South Tyneside Hospital campaign, we have seen a loss of key services and a downgrading of other services. Despite the work of the amazing staff, the hospital now requires improvement. Why is his Government forcing that decline?
Steve Barclay
The Government have committed an initial £3.7 billion, which indicates our commitment to the new hospital programme. As I said, I will have more to say on that shortly.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Kettering General Hospital serves my constituency, and work has already started on building a new hospital—one of the Boris hospitals—so I do not know what all the fuss is about. The Government are getting on and doing the job. Is that correct?
Steve Barclay
It is. As my hon. Friend will know from another of my visits, which was with him to Kettering, the enabling works are progressing. That is in no small part a tribute to the work that he and neighbouring MPs have done to strongly make the case for Kettering. I know that he will continue to do so, and I look forward to working with him on that.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
We announced in January that we will publish a major conditions strategy, which will apply a geographical lens to each condition to address disparities in health outcomes. We have doubled the duty on cigarettes since 2010 and now have the lowest smoking rate on record. We are investing an extra £900 million through the drugs strategy, increasing funding by 40%, and to fight obesity we have introduced the sugar tax and measures such as the extra £330 million for school sport.
Dr Huq
The daily dump of WhatsApp messages in the papers reminds us of covid and the disproportionate deaths suffered by black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. What with that and the figures showing a 20-year gap between life expectancies in our nation’s most affluent and poorest wards, why is it that the Government scrapped a proposed White Paper on health inequalities?
Neil O’Brien
As I just said, we are driving forward all that work through the major conditions paper. In addition, we have the Start for Life programme, with another £300 million to improve young people’s start in life. We are absolutely committed to tackling health disparities and driving forward work on all fronts.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Vaping was designed as a stop-smoking device for adult smokers, but the flavours, colours and disposable vapes have become a fad for children, encouraging those who have never smoked to take up vaping. What are the Government doing to prevent that?
Neil O’Brien
My hon. Friend is quite right. It is something that we are looking at very closely, as she knows from previous conversations. While vaping can be an aid in quitting smoking—it helped about 800,000 people to do so last year—we must stop its use being driven up among children.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
We are just 24 days away from a new financial year. Last week, more than 30 public health leaders said that the delay to releasing the public health allocation for 2023-24 was
“putting public health services at risk”.
Early years support, addiction treatment and stop-smoking services should not have to pay the price of this Minister’s incompetence. He must apologise for treating councils and the health of our communities with such contempt. When will the public health grant be announced?
Neil O’Brien
The public health grant will be announced within days, not weeks. When it is announced, the Opposition will see that, as well as generously funding public health, we will be funding an extra £900 million on drugs spending to transform treatment and an extra £300 million through the Start for Life programme. We will continue to ramp up support for public health.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
The Government are committed to addressing childhood obesity. We have introduced calorie labelling for on-the-go food and brought in the sugar tax. To drive up activity, we are spending £330 million a year on school sport through the PE premium and investing £300 million in new facilities through the youth investment fund. We are also spending £150 million a year on healthy food schemes such as school fruit and vegetables, nursery milk and the Healthy Start scheme.
Lee Anderson
A top local chef in Ashfield agrees with me that cooking meals from scratch is far cheaper and more nutritious than having processed foods and ready meals. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea to start teaching children basic cooking skills in school so that they can enjoy a healthier diet as part of our fight against obesity?
Neil O’Brien
My hon. Friend is totally right. As well as the funding that I mentioned for healthy eating in schools, cooking and nutrition are part of the national curriculum from key stages 1 to 3, which aims to teach children how to cook and apply those principles of healthy eating, but I am sure there is more that we can do together.
Nicola Richards
The announcement of the Government-backed trial in Wolverhampton to introduce a Better Health: Rewards app is welcome, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson), who has campaigned hard for it. My constituency also suffers from poor health outcomes, including excessive levels of childhood obesity, with one in three year 6 children being overweight or obese. How will the Minister monitor the success of the trial? Will he consider extending it to areas such as West Bromwich East?
Neil O’Brien
The Better Health: Rewards pilot that we are funding in Wolverhampton is very exciting, and more than 10,000 residents have already registered with the app. We will be monitoring the lessons of the pilot closely and looking at how we can apply them more broadly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
For such families it is about not necessarily the right food, but the cheapest food, which means that, in many cases, young children become obese through no fault of their own. What can be done to help families to buy healthier foods on a budget that is often minimal?
Neil O’Brien
The hon. Gentleman is completely correct. As well as the actions that we are taking on healthy eating and obesity, that is exactly why we are spending £55 billion to help households and businesses with their energy bills this winter—one of the biggest packages in Europe. It is also why we have the £900 cost of living payment for 8 million poorer households, we are increasing the national living wage to its highest ever level, and we are spending £26 billion on the cost of living support this year. He is completely right and I commend his work on it.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Scottish Government aim to halve childhood obesity by 2030, but dealing with the consequences of a poor diet alone is not enough. It is essential to address the underlying causes, such as child poverty. What representations has the Minister made to his Cabinet colleagues about the Department for Work and Pensions and the damaging effects of some of its policies on public health outcomes?
Neil O’Brien
I met the SNP’s public health lead last week and had an excellent conversation with her. As well as the sugar tax, we have introduced calorie labelling; volume and location restrictions on high fat, salt and sugar products, which come in from October; the advertising watershed from 2025; and all those other measures, such as school sport and the youth investment fund. We have done all that because we share exactly those concerns about obesity and we are driving forward work to tackle it.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
More people are coming forward to get checked for cancer. Last year, more than 10,000 urgent GP referrals were made per working day and more than 100,000 patients were diagnosed with cancer at an earlier stage, when it is easier to treat.
Tim Farron
I thank the Minister for her answer. In south Cumbria, 27% of people diagnosed with cancer wait more than two months for their first treatment, and in north Cumbria that figure is 44%. Let us imagine how terrifying it is for someone to be told that they have a dangerous disease, but that they may need to wait two months for the first intervention—people are dying needlessly. I draw her attention to the campaign run jointly by the all-party parliamentary group for radiotherapy and the Express, which seeks a £1 billion boost to increase capacity and update technology in radiotherapy. Will she meet me to specifically consider the bid for a radiotherapy satellite unit at the Westmorland General Hospital in Kendal, so that we can cut waiting times and save lives?
Helen Whately
As the hon. Gentleman said, if someone suspects that they have cancer, it is extremely worrying for them to have to wait for a diagnosis—or for the all-clear, as happens for the majority of people—or, if they have had their diagnosis, for treatment. That is why we are working hard to speed up access to cancer diagnosis and treatment, and we are looking at all the options to do that. To give him some examples: NHS England is driving ahead to open new community diagnostic centres, 92 of which are already operational; rolling out faecal immunochemical testing for people with possible lower gastrointestinal tract cancer; and rolling out teledermatology to speed up the diagnosis of skin cancer. We are also seeing backlogs coming down.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)
We published the urgent and emergency care recovery plan, which set out a number of measures to improve patient flow within hospitals, which has an impact on ambulance performance. In addition, we are purchasing 800 new ambulances, which will be on the road this year.
Antony Higginbotham
The Secretary of State will be aware that, in 2007, the last Labour Government closed the accident and emergency at Burnley General Teaching Hospital. When I speak to my constituents about ambulance wait times, the one thing that they always return to is bringing back the A&E at Burnley, which the Labour Government took away. I have raised this issue with Health Ministers since the day I was elected, so will he set out whether it will ever be possible to bring back the A&E that Labour closed? Will he meet me to discuss it?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the consequences of closures such as that, PFI or other issues that are still felt in communities such as Burnley. He will also know that it is for the integrated care board to look at commissioning decisions and I know that he will make his case powerfully to that board.
Sarah Atherton
The Welsh Labour Government have a service level agreement with the Welsh ambulance service to hand over patients to hospital within 15 minutes. At the Wrexham Maelor Hospital, this target is consistently missed, and a recent handover took eight hours 36 minutes. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Welsh Government need to stop playing the blame game and start working in partnership for the betterment of patients?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend raises an extremely powerful point. It is not only those targets in Wales that are being missed. She will know that people are almost twice as likely to be waiting for treatment in the Labour-run Welsh NHS than they are in England: 21.3% in Wales compared with 12.8% in England. She will also know that the number of two-year waits for operations in Wales, at over 50,000, is considerably higher than that in England, which is below 2,000.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
On 30 January, the Secretary of State agreed to meet me and my colleagues who represent the other parts of Shropshire to discuss the particularly acute issues that we have been seeing at our hospitals. That meeting is not in the diary. Will he commit to arranging that as soon as possible, so that we can get these issues addressed?
Steve Barclay
I apologise to the hon. Lady because she raises a perfectly fair point. I will do all I can to expedite that meeting.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
The elective recovery plan sets out how we are tackling backlogs, including in eye care. As well as having over 4,900 more doctors and 11,000 more nurses than last year, we also have 92 community diagnostic centres operational and 89 surgical hubs, and we are boosting capacity in 180 trusts with expanded wards and modular theatres. Two-year waits have been virtually eliminated, and we now aim to eliminate 18-month waits by April.
Marsha De Cordova
The backlogs have meant that the number of patients waiting for ophthalmology treatment has increased by 41% in the last three years, and that is over 630,000 people in England. Average waiting times have increased substantially, and the number of patients starting treatment within 18 weeks of referral has dropped to 62%. We know that delays to treatment can and will lead to avoidable sight loss, and we need a plan to tackle the eye care crisis in the NHS. I recently visited the fantastic eye department at St Thomas’s Hospital, which is doing an incredible job in managing this. Will the Minister back my plan for a Bill and visit the brilliant service that it is delivering?
Neil O’Brien
This is exactly why we are investing the extra £8 billion in elective recovery. Ophthalmology 52-week waits are coming down from 42,000 to just under 27,000. But can I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her passion for this subject? We had a Westminster Hall debate the other day and she had to run to be there—such is her passion—but she made it. I thank her for all her work on this matter.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
When my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary joined me at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn, he saw the new West Norfolk eye centre, which is enabling an extra 2,000 appointments and 2,000 more injections every year to help to deal with the backlogs. Does that not just demonstrate the difference that new buildings can make to better patient care, but underline the importance of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital being added to the Government’s new hospitals building programme, which I know he is working hard to achieve?
Neil O’Brien
The Secretary of State will have taken note of my hon. Friend’s representations.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
This is a great opportunity to remind the House that, from 1 April, women will be able to apply for an HRT prepayment prescription for less than £20 a year to pay for all their HRT, whether they are on patches, gels or dual hormones.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Although these cost reductions are welcome, England is still the only UK nation not to offer free prescriptions. Instead, the UK Government are penalising those who are experiencing menopause who need these medications to improve their symptoms. Will the Minister not consider following Scotland’s lead and scrap prescription charges to better provide accessible menopause support?
Maria Caulfield
I remind the hon. Lady that about 60% of women in England who are on hormone replacement therapy are already exempt from prescription charges, but we are reducing the cost by hundreds of pounds a year for the remaining women who do pay. We respect the Scottish Government’s decision to provide free prescriptions, but it would cost us in England £651 million a year to provide free paracetamol to millionaires and we do not think that is the best use of taxpayer money.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
With International Women’s Day tomorrow, I want to pay tribute to the menopause warriors—all the amazing individual women and organisations who have forced this issue up the agenda, including my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). It was her private Member’s Bill that made Ministers finally agree to cut the cost of HRT prescriptions, but questions remain. Will all products that help with menopause symptoms be eligible for the prescription prepayment scheme? What are Ministers doing to end the ongoing and unacceptable shortages in HRT that are causing women such anxiety, and if this issue is such a priority for the Government, why has not the menopause taskforce met since June last year—let me warn the Minister, the warriors do not want to wait?
Maria Caulfield
It is a shame that, on International Women’s Day, the shadow Minister cannot welcome the progress we are making on the menopause. Labour could have done this. We are the first Government to reduce the cost of HRT for women. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), wants to listen because this is important for women. All licensed HRT products will be available on the prepayment certificate. On the issue of shortages, over 70 products are available to women. Last year, 19 of them were facing a shortage. Thanks to the work of this Government, that is down to five products, and Utrogestan, a product widely used by women, is now back in stock and is being distributed to pharmacies. We are passionate about making HRT more available. There has been a 50% increase in the number of women getting HRT prescriptions. That is a tremendous success for women and we are reducing the cost.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
In my letter to my right hon. Friend, I noted that it is likely that a combination of factors has contributed to potential excess deaths, including high flu prevalence, ongoing covid-19, and the disruption to the treatment and detection of conditions such as heart disease. But I know she is very thoughtful about this and follows it closely, and I will endeavour to get her more details.
Esther McVey
I am pleased my question has now resulted in a response, for which I am grateful. However, from that response, I was none the wiser as to how the Government have explained the non-covid excess deaths we have seen. So can the Minister give us an insight into the reasons for the non-covid excess deaths since the pandemic?
Neil O’Brien
Even if we just take one disease such as cardiovascular disease, there was disruption to screening, to referrals and to treatment from the covid pandemic. It was noted at the time that that would happen and there would be consequences from it, but let me set out in more detail to my right hon. Friend all the exact facts and figures on this, because I know she has been following it closely.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
When the Minister dug out the letter from the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), I wonder whether he also stumbled upon my letter of 8 February to the Secretary of State about the desperate need for new intensive care investment at Northwick Park Hospital in my constituency, and whether he might expedite a reply on that issue.
Neil O’Brien
I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s question will indeed expedite it.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)
Since March 2019, GPs have recruited over 25,000 staff such as pharmacists, physiotherapists and mental health practitioners, and we are on track to hit our 26,000 additional staff commitment.
Dr Mullan
As a doctor myself, I will be very happy to see one of those many fantastic professionals the Secretary of State mentioned, including pharmacists and physios, in the primary care setting, but I understand from local GPs that patients do not always have the confidence to do that and 111 is not necessarily directing people to see the wider team. Can we ensure 111 is set up to direct people to different professionals, and can we do something to promote and educate the public on how fantastic that wider healthcare team is in primary care?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why I commissioned through NHS England a review of 111. It was initially designed for a different purpose. That allows the GP service to be the front door it has become in the NHS. Through the chief executive of Milton Keynes University Hospital, we have done significant work on the NHS app, so it can better enable patients to get to the right place for the care they need.
Layla Moran
In January, over 45,000 people in Oxfordshire waited more than two weeks to see their GP and 12,000 waited over a month. The top reason given when I visited surgeries was that they simply cannot recruit the doctors they need. For example, Kennington health centre has been forced to close part time because it cannot find a replacement for a retiring partner. That is clearly unsustainable. Will the Secretary of State consider introducing a weighting for GPs in areas of high cost of living outside London? Will he meet me to discuss the specific issues in Oxfordshire?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Member is right to highlight the pressure on primary care, which is why, in the answer I gave a moment ago, I said it is also about looking at the wider skills mix within primary care. She mentions doctors specifically. We have 2,200 more doctors in general practice than before the pandemic. It is about having the right skills mix alongside the doctors to meet the significant increased demand since the pandemic.
Robert Courts
Demand for GP appointments in Oxfordshire is indeed acute. It is driven in part by the need to continue to treat people with long-term medical conditions. Will my right hon. Friend consider what can be done to rebalance the system, so that instead of dealing with people when they present with acute symptoms, more is done to ensure people can be treated at the primary and community level?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend highlights an absolutely brilliant point, one I am extremely seized of, which is: how do we get detection much sooner, looking at genomics, screening and identifying issues before the patient is even necessarily aware that they have a condition. Early care delivers far better patient outcomes but it is also far cheaper to deliver. That prevention, as he highlights, is extremely important.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The primary care crisis in Plymouth is getting worse, but there is a cross-party solution in Plymouth, which is to build a new super health hub, the Cavell centre, in the city centre. The Government have withdrawn the £41 million funding for that, but the Minister’s predecessor offered to put pressure on Devon’s integrated care board to see what could be funded locally and whether there is a national-local partnership that could deliver this pioneering pilot project, which could really improve healthcare in Plymouth that would be a model for the rest of the country. Will the Secretary of State look at Devon’s ICB and whether he could put pressure on that ICB to fund that pioneering project?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman reasonably highlights that the commissioning is a decision for the ICB, but also rightly draws attention to the opportunity to look at different models, for example, how we look across communities at economies of scale, and how we combine that with modern methods of construction to deliver projects far more quickly. I am happy to look, with Devon ICB, at the issue he raises.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I really welcome the increase in patient care staff in GP practices in my constituency, but can I appeal to the Secretary of State to fix the problem with the taxation of GPs’ pensions, which is forcing many into early retirement just when we need their services the most?
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend is a very experienced parliamentarian and will know that issues of tax are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but I draw her attention to “Our plan for patients”, which sets out a package of NHS pension scheme measures.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
NHS dentists form a really important part of the primary care workforce. However, in places such as York, we have a complete desert, where my constituents just cannot receive NHS dentistry. What is the Secretary of State going to do for my constituents, so that their oral health needs are addressed?
Steve Barclay
We will set out to the House in due course a recovery plan to deal in particular with primary care but also dentistry. We recognise that, notwithstanding the fiscal support that was offered to protect dentistry through the pandemic, it is an area of acute interest across the House. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), will be saying more on that very shortly.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
Last year, £50 million was invested through the promotion of the better mental health fund in 40 local authorities that have the most deprived parts of the country. That is to boost prevention and early intervention and to support those hardest hit by the pandemic and the cost of living.
Angela Crawley
The Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland found that 52% of Scots are concerned about the impact that rising prices are having on their mental health. Poverty is a key driver of poor mental health, and those already struggling with poor mental health and money worries are likely to be the hardest hit. What discussions has the Minister had with her Cabinet colleagues on the consequences of policies, such as the punitive sanctions regime, that are shown to increase anxiety and harm to people’s mental health?
Maria Caulfield
This Government have been supporting people with the cost of living through the £37 billion package, and £15 billion of targeted support for those most in need. That includes £150 of help with council tax, £400 for electricity, the 8 million people supported by the £1,200 payment and paying towards half of people’s energy costs. This Government are serious about helping people with the cost of living at this time.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to tackling mental ill health, in particular the recent funding that we have received in Stafford for a new crisis assessment centre at St George’s Hospital. What further steps are the Government taking to improve access to mental health support, especially in our schools?
Maria Caulfield
I thank my hon. Friend for her hard work securing that funding for the crisis centre in her constituency. These centres make such a difference, because they are based in the community and can intervene at an earlier stage when someone is facing difficulty. They are on top of measures such as our mental health ambulances, which will also respond to people in crisis, and supporting our local communities to deal with mental health as well as those with a mental illness.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
We have increased real-terms spending on general practice by more than a fifth since 2015. We are growing the workforce, with 2,200 more doctors and 25,000 extra primary care clinicians compared with 2019. We have the most GPs in training ever, up from 2,600 to 4,000. In January there were 11% more appointments in general practice than in the same month before the pandemic. I pay tribute to the work that general practitioners are doing.
Mrs Hamilton
Under the Tories, the number of qualified GPs has fallen to a record low, which is hitting local communities across the UK very hard. In January, in Erdington, Kingstanding and Castle Vale, more than 2,000 people had to wait more than a month for a GP appointment. Is it not the case that the longer the Tories are in power, the longer patients will have to wait?
Neil O’Brien
As well as the 2,200 extra doctors in primary care, I mentioned the 25,000 extra other clinicians. That means that in the hon. Lady’s constituency there are 55% more staff working directly with patients than before.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
At a time when GP and A&E services are under pressure, I am pleased to see the ministerial team’s focus on helping people to see a doctor when they need to. Does the Minister agree that walk-in centres, such as ours in Norwich city centre, are helpful, popular and necessary?
Neil O’Brien
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; walk-in centres are a key part of primary care. We are looking at how they can do more, and I pay tribute to all the work they are already doing.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)
On Friday I was proud to announce the winners of the third round of the artificial intelligence in health and care award. Winners included projects within the NHS that identify women at risk of stillbirth, help with neurological conditions, find lung blockages and assess the quality of transplant organs, as well as a number of projects focused on cancer, identifying people’s predisposition and its presence. Since its inception in 2019, the AI in health and care award has invested more than £123 million in 86 promising projects, supporting more than 300,000 patients. AI will come to save countless lives in the NHS in the years to come, and that begins with the investment today.
Tonia Antoniazzi
The Secretary of State should know that I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for access to medical cannabis under prescription, for children with intractable epilepsy. The situation is as intolerable as ever. Both product supply and cost are causing families great pain, and their children are desperate. I urge the Secretary of State to meet me to discuss convening a roundtable to help identify solutions to the crisis of lack of access. I am still awaiting a response from his Minister from 18 January 2023.
Steve Barclay
I am very aware of the hon. Lady’s work as chair of the APPG, so I am not surprised that she asks about that important issue, which she has been assiduous in raising. I will flag up the follow-up with my ministerial colleague. I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the fact that the National Institute for Health and Care Research remains open to research proposals in this area. I encourage her to ensure through her work on the APPG that bids are made to generate the evidence that the clinicians who make decisions on prescribing need.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Steve Barclay
We are always happy to assist colleagues across the United Kingdom as part of our commitment to the Union. My hon. Friend is right to highlight current performance in Wales. As I have said, patients are waiting twice as long for hospital treatment in Wales as in England, and more than 50,000 people in Wales are waiting for more than two years for their operation.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
When nurses and paramedics voted to take strike action, the Secretary of State refused to negotiate and said that the pay review body’s decision was final. He has now U-turned, but not before 144,000 operations and appointments were cancelled through his incompetence. Will he now apologise to patients for this avoidable disruption?
Steve Barclay
What the hon. Gentleman omits to remind the House is that at the time the demand from trade unions was for a 19% consolidated pay rise, which is very different from the basis on which talks have been entered into. The point is that we are in discussions with trade union colleagues. Trade unions and the Government have a shared purpose—to address the very real challenges that we recognise the NHS workforce have faced, particularly in the context of the pandemic—and a shared desire, which is to focus on patients and ensure that they get the right care to support them.
Wes Streeting
I think patients know who to trust, and it is nurses, not the Secretary of State. The Government have still learned nothing: despite a 98% vote in favour of strikes, the Secretary of State was sent to meet junior doctors without a mandate from the Prime Minister to negotiate. What is the point of this Health Secretary if he is in office but not in charge?
Steve Barclay
I have come to the House literally from a meeting with the trade unions: I met the NHS Staff Council this morning. Once again, hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench are writing their questions before they see what is actually happening.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. We are launching a prevention of suicide strategy, and male suicide will be a particular focus, as it is a high-risk group. The debate next week will be answered by a Minister in the Department for Education, because it relates specifically to the national curriculum, but I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituent.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Unprotected sun exposure causes skin cancer, and some 16,000 cases are diagnosed each year. Affordable sunscreen is therefore essential for protection. Will the Secretary of State help to tackle the issue by supporting the Sun Protection Products (Value Added Tax) Bill, a ten-minute rule Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) that would remove VAT on sun protection products?
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
Sun exposure is one of the most significant causes of cancer. That is one reason why we are working so hard with the NHS to reduce backlogs for people who are waiting for cancer diagnosis and treatment, including by rolling out teledermatology across the NHS to reduce diagnosis times. However, the hon. Gentleman’s question about VAT and skin cancer is a matter for the Treasury.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
Steve Barclay
As we heard earlier from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), the major conditions strategy report will deal with those issues. However, it is also important to consider the variation in performance between integrated care boards and how we can raise the bottom quartile to the level of the top quartile—there is far too much variation within the NHS—and to be data-driven, so that when it comes to genomics and screening we can target the outliers more precisely. That is what is behind the issue to which my hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Helen Whately
Cancer will be a substantial part of the major conditions strategy. We will be looking at the major causes of ill health in the country, of which cancer is, of course, one. Part of that will involve ensuring that we are good at diagnosing cancer, because the earlier it is diagnosed, the more treatable it is, and hence the better the outcomes for people with cancer will be.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I welcome today’s announcement of the appointment of Professor Deanfield as the Government’s prevention champion with a focus on cardiovascular disease, one of the main causes of which is, of course, smoking. May I ask where we are with an updated tobacco control plan, and whether the Minister will look again at the introduction of a “smoke-free fund” paid for by the tobacco industry to boost those new public health budgets?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
We will be setting out our next steps on smoking shortly, but we already have the lowest smoking level on record: it has fallen to 13%, partly as a result of the doubling of duty on cigarettes and partly owing to the introduction of a minimum excise tax. We will be investing £35 million in the NHS this year to ensure that all smokers who are admitted to hospital are given NHS-funded tobacco treatment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Helen Whately
It is indeed a worrying experience for people to be waiting to know whether they have cancer or, having received a diagnosis, to be waiting for treatment. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that more people are currently coming forward for cancer checks, more people are being treated for cancer, and the NHS is reducing some of the backlogs following the pandemic.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s actions to deal with obesity, but it remains an increasing health issue for our nation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that educating children and parents about healthy eating should be a top priority—
Sir David Evennett
—and may I urge his Department to increase its campaigns on the consequences of obesity?
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend’s question was so good that I was eager to answer it early. He is right to highlight this issue, which is being dealt with as part of a wider thrust within Government work on prevention, which is how we can empower the patient. That means getting more data to patients and using genomics and screening to ensure that they are better informed and can therefore opt to take decisions on healthy eating, rather than the state trying to impose those decisions on them in a top-down manner.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Steve Barclay
I am happy for a member of the ministerial team to meet the hon. Lady, who has made a compelling case about the return on investment. We will obviously need to scrutinise it in more detail, and I am sure that my colleagues will look forward to doing so.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Secretary of State is aware of Medway’s case for being part of the Government’s hospital building programme. It was the hardest-hit area during covid-19, and it has some of the greatest health inequalities in the country, and one of the busiest accident and emergency units in Kent. Will the Secretary of State visit Medway with me to witness our urgent need, so that we can be part of that hospital building programme for the future?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issues in Medway and those in Kent as a whole. When I met the chief executive of Maidstone Hospital yesterday, we discussed some of the innovation that it has introduced and the benefits of that innovation across the board. As for the new hospitals programme, I remind my hon. Friend of the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 22 February, when he confirmed the Government’s commitment to that programme.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have huge sympathy for those affected by Primodos. He will also know that there is a legal case at the moment so I am unable comment at this time, but I am happy to discuss it with him further.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Over the past year or so, Bedfordshire’s fire service and ambulance service have taken innovative steps to co-operate to bring response times down. They are now working on a plan to deepen that co-operation. Will my right hon. Friend facilitate a meeting with the leaders of the fire service and ambulance service in due course when that plan is ready?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the community services that we are doing as part of our urgent and emergency recovery plan, looking at how we deliver care quicker through innovative models. One of those involves better co-operation with the fire service.
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
Neil O’Brien
We will be setting out further steps shortly, but there are 6.5% more dentists doing work for the NHS than in 2010 and we have started the reforms with more units of dental activity bands and a minimum UDA.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that about one third of the activity that takes place in GP surgeries could be transferred to pharmacies? What is he doing to promote that policy and deal with the British Medical Association’s reluctance to co-operate?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that a number of services that GPs currently offer could be performed by pharmacists, and we are looking at that in the context of the primary care recovery plan. This is also about looking at how we can relieve some of the workload pressure within primary care, and that is why we have recruited 25,000 additional staff to support GPs. It is also why we have over 2,000 more doctors in primary care.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
Neil O’Brien
That is exactly why we are spending £55 billion this winter to help households and businesses with their energy bills. That is one of the largest support packages in Europe.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that community-based drop-in mental health services such as the Link centres in North Devon are vital to remote rural communities? Will he urge Devon County Council not only to continue those services but to improve and extend the model?
Steve Barclay
It is for schemes such as those that my hon. Friend highlights that we are investing a further £2.3 billion a year in mental health services, and that in turn is facilitating an extra 2 million patients accessing NHS-funded mental health support.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
More than £300 million of the NHS dentistry budget is set to be clawed back by NHS England at the end of this month. That is not because of a lack of demand; it is because the Government’s NHS dental contract is broken and dentists are walking away from NHS work. Will the Government ringfence these funds, rolled over to next year, so that people who desperately need dental treatment can get those appointments?
Neil O’Brien
That is exactly why we will continue to reform the contract as the hon. Lady suggests, and it is why we have started allowing dentists to do 110% of their UDAs, but she is right and we will go further.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, including my co-chairing of the all-party parliamentary group for hospice and end of life care. Now that integrated care boards have a duty to commission palliative care, what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to assess delivery? Will he join me in calling for the North East and North Cumbria ICB to listen to the hospices in the Tees Valley, which would save our hospices and save the NHS money?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to the extremely important work of hospices and to the fact that commissioning decisions are devolved to the integrated care boards so that they can target funding in the way that best serves local communities. He is quite right to lobby on their behalf and I am sure that his relevant ICB will take note of that.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the statement on the Illegal Migration Bill, I wish to make a brief statement.
I am aware that there are a number of cases before the courts that relate to the subject matter of the Bill. Given the national importance of the issues to be discussed, I am prepared to exercise a waiver and allow brief references to those cases. However, I would ask Members to exercise caution and not to refer in detail to issues that are being considered by the courts.
Illegal Migration Bill
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Government’s Illegal Migration Bill.
Two months ago, the Prime Minister made a promise to the British people that anyone entering this country illegally will be detained and swiftly removed—no half measures. The Illegal Migration Bill will fulfil that promise. It will allow us to stop the boats that are bringing tens of thousands to our shores in flagrant breach of both our laws and the will of the British people.
The United Kingdom must always support the world’s most vulnerable. Since 2015 we have given sanctuary to nearly half a million people, including 150,000 people from Hong Kong, 160,000 people from Ukraine and 25,000 Afghans fleeing the Taliban. Indeed, decades ago, my parents found security and opportunity in this country, for which my family are eternally grateful.
Crucially, these decisions are supported by the British people precisely because they are decisions made by the British people and their elected representatives, not by the people smugglers and other criminals who break into Britain on a daily basis. For a Government not to respond to the waves of illegal migrants breaching our borders would be to betray the will of the people we were elected to serve.
The small boats problem is part of a larger global migration crisis. In the coming years, developed countries will face unprecedented pressure from ever greater numbers of people leaving the developing world for places such as the United Kingdom. Unless we act today, the problem will be worse tomorrow, and the problem is already unsustainable.
People are dying in the channel. The volume of illegal arrivals has overwhelmed our asylum system. The backlog has ballooned to over 160,000. The asylum system now costs the British taxpayer £3 billion a year. Since 2018, some 85,000 people have illegally entered the United Kingdom by small boat—45,000 of them in 2022 alone. All travelled through multiple safe countries in which they could and should have claimed asylum. Many came from safe countries, such as Albania, and almost all passed through France. The vast majority—74% in 2021—were adult males under the age of 40, rich enough to pay criminal gangs thousands of pounds for passage.
Upon arrival, most are accommodated in hotels across the country, costing the British taxpayer around £6 million a day. The risk remains that these individuals just disappear. And when we try to remove them, they turn our generous asylum laws against us to prevent removal. The need for reform is obvious and urgent.
This Government have not sat on their hands. Since this Prime Minister took office, recognising the necessity of joint solutions with France, we have signed a new deal that provides more technology and embeds British officers with French patrols. I hope Friday’s Anglo-French summit will further deepen that co-operation.
We have created a new small boats operational command, with more than 700 new staff; doubled National Crime Agency funding to tackle smuggling gangs; increased enforcement raids by 50%; signed a deal with Albania, which has already enabled the return of hundreds of illegal arrivals; and are procuring accommodation, including on military land, to end the farce of accommodating migrants in hotels.
But let us be honest: it is still not enough. In the face of today’s global migration crisis, yesterday’s laws are simply not fit for purpose. So to anyone proposing de facto open borders through unlimited safe and legal routes as the alternative, let us be honest: there are 100 million people around the world who could qualify for protection under our current laws. Let us be clear: they are coming here. We have seen a 500% increase in small boat crossings in two years. This is the crucial point of this Bill. They will not stop coming here until the world knows that if you enter Britain illegally, you will be detained and swiftly removed—back to your country if it is safe, or to a safe third country, such as Rwanda.
That is precisely what this Bill will do. That is how we will stop the boats. This Bill enables the detention of illegal arrivals, without bail or judicial review within the first 28 days of detention, until they can be removed. It puts a duty on the Home Secretary to remove illegal entrants and will radically narrow the number of challenges and appeals that can suspend removal. Only those under 18, medically unfit to fly or at real risk of serious and irreversible harm in the country we are removing them to—that is an exceedingly high bar—will be able to delay their removal. Any other claims will be heard remotely, after removal.
When our Modern Slavery Act 2015 passed, the impact assessment envisaged 3,500 referrals a year. Last year, 17,000 referrals took on average 543 days to consider. Modern slavery laws are being abused to block removals. That is why we granted more than 50% of asylum requests from citizens of a safe European country and NATO ally, Albania. That is why this Bill disqualifies illegal entrants from using modern slavery rules to prevent removal.
I will not address the Bill’s full legal complexities today. [Interruption.] Some of the nation’s finest legal minds have been and continue to be involved in its development. But I must say this: rule 39 and the process that enabled the Strasbourg Court to block, at the last minute, flights to Rwanda, after our courts had refused injunctions, was deeply flawed. Our ability to control our borders cannot be held back by an opaque process, conducted late at night, with no chance to make our case or even appeal decisions. That is why we have initiated discussions in Strasbourg to ensure that its blocking orders meet a basic natural justice standard, one that prevents abuse of rule 39 to thwart removal; and it is why the Bill will set out the conditions for the UK’s future compliance with such orders.
Other countries share our dilemma and will understand the justice of our position. Our approach is robust and novel, which is why we cannot make a definitive statement of compatibility under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998. Of course, the UK will always seek to uphold international law, and I am confident that this Bill is compatible with international law. When we have stopped the boats, the Bill will introduce an annual cap, to be determined by Parliament, on the number of refugees the UK will resettle via safe and legal routes. This will ensure an orderly system, considering local authority capacity for housing, public services and support.
The British people are famously a fair and patient people. But their sense of fair play has been tested beyond its limits as they have seen the country taken for a ride. Their patience has run out. The law-abiding patriotic majority have said, “Enough is enough.” This cannot and will not continue. Their Government—this Government—must act decisively, must act with determination, must act with compassion, and must act with proportion. Make no mistake: this Conservative Government—this Conservative Prime Minister—will act now to stop the boats. I commend the statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
A record 45,000 people crossed the channel on dangerous small boats last year, up from just 280 four years ago. In that short time, the Government have allowed criminal gangs to take hold along the channel and along our border. At the same time, convictions of people smugglers have halved; Home Office asylum decisions have collapsed, down 40%; the backlog and costly, inappropriate hotel use have soared; removals of unsuccessful asylum seekers are down 80% on the last Labour Government; and legal family reunion visas for refugees are down 40%. That is deeply damaging chaos, and there is no point in Ministers trying to blame anyone else for it. They have been in power for 13 years. The asylum system is broken, and they broke it.
We need serious action to stop dangerous boat crossings, which are putting lives at risk and undermining border security. That is why Labour has put forward plans for a cross-border police unit, for fast-track decisions and returns to clear the backlog and end hotel use, and for a new agreement with France and other countries. Instead, today’s statement is groundhog day. The Home Secretary has said:
“Anyone who arrives illegally will be deemed inadmissible and either returned to the country they arrived from or a safe third country.”
[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Only that was not this Home Secretary: it was the last one. And that was not about this Bill: it was about the last one, passed only a year ago and which did not work. As part of last year’s Bill, the Home Office considered 18,000 people as inadmissible for the asylum system because they had travelled through safe third countries, but because it had no return agreements in place, just 21 of them were returned. That is 0.1%. The other 99.9% just carried on, often in hotels, at an extra cost of £500 million, and it did not deter anyone. Even more boats arrived.
What is different this time? The Government still do not have any return agreements in place. The Home Secretary has admitted that Rwanda is “failing”, and even if it gets going it will take only a few hundred people. What will happen to the other 99% under the Bill? She says that she will detain them all, perhaps for 28 days. Can she tell us how many detention centres the Government will need in total and how much they will cost? Even if she does that, what will happen when people leave 28-day detention? Will she make people destitute, so that they just wander the streets in total chaos? They will include torture victims, Afghan interpreters and families with children. Or will she put them into indefinite taxpayer-funded accommodation? Never returned anywhere because the Government do not have agreements with Europe in place, never given sanctuary, never having their case resolved—just forever in asylum accommodation and hotels. She may not call it the asylum system, but thousands of people are still going to be in it.
What will the Bill mean for the promises we made to the Afghan interpreters who served our country but who were too late to make the last flight out of Kabul as the tyranny was closing in upon them? The Government told them to flee and find another way here, and they told us to tell people that as well. But the resettlement scheme is not helping them and, if they finally arrive in this country this afternoon, perhaps by travelling through Ireland to get here, they will only ever be illegal in the eyes of a Government who relied on the sacrifices they made for us.
If the Government were serious, they would be working internationally to get a proper new agreement in place with France and Europe, including return agreements, properly controlled and managed legal routes such as family reunion, and reform of resettlement. Instead, this Bill makes that harder, unilaterally choosing to decide no asylum cases at all, but expecting every other country to carry on.
If the Government were serious, they would be working with Labour on our plan for a major new cross-border policing unit to go after the criminal gangs. Instead, the deputy chairman of the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) said yesterday that we should not go after the gangs because they have existed for “thousands of years”. That is the disgraceful Tory attitude that has let the gangs off of the hook and let them take hold. One smuggler told Sky News yesterday that three quarters of the smugglers live in Britain, but barely any of them are being prosecuted and the Government still have not found the hundreds of children missing from asylum hotels who have been picked up by criminal gangs.
The Government could be setting out a serious plan today. We would work with them on it, and so would everyone across the country. Instead, it is just more chaos. The Government say “no ifs, no buts”, but we all know that they will spend the next year if-ing and but-ing and looking for someone else to blame when it all goes wrong. Enough is enough. We cannot afford any more of this—slogans and not solutions, government by gimmick, ramping up the rhetoric on refugees and picking fights simply to have someone else to blame when things go wrong. This Bill is not a solution. It is a con that risks making the chaos worse. Britain deserves better than this chaos. Britain is better than this.
Suella Braverman
I thank the right hon. Lady for her remarks, but—forgive me—after five minutes of hysteria, histrionics and criticism, I am still not clear: I have no idea what Labour’s plan is. I will assume that the shadow Home Secretary is still committed to scrapping our Rwanda partnership, as she said last year, and I will assume that the Leader of the Opposition still wants to close immigration removal centres, as he promised during his leadership campaign. The shadow Home Secretary talks about safe and legal routes; I wonder what number Labour would cap that at. Would it be 500,000? A million? Five million? She should be honest with the House and with the British people: what she really means is unlimited safe and legal routes—open borders by the back door.
The right hon. Lady says get serious, so let us look at the facts. The British people want to stop the boats. It is one of the five promises the Prime Minister made to the British people, but stopping the boats did not even feature in the Leader of the Opposition’s five big missions. Is it because he does not care or because he does not know what to do? We all know why, and I think the British people know why: it is because, deep down, the Leader of the Opposition does not want to stop the boats and he thinks it is bigoted to say we have got too much illegal migration abusing our system. It is because Labour MPs would prefer to write letters stopping the removal of foreign national offenders. It is because the Labour party would prefer to vote against our measures to penalise foreign national offenders and to streamline our asylum system.
Those are the facts. Labour is against deterring people who would come here illegally, against detaining people who come here illegally and against deporting people who are here illegally. That means that Labour is for this situation getting worse and worse. Perhaps that is fine for the Leader of the Opposition and most of those on the Labour Front Bench, but it is not their schools, their GPs or their public services, housing and hotels filling up with illegal migrants.
Perhaps that is why, even before seeing the Bill and engaging on the substance, Labour has already said it will not support its passage through Parliament. Is the Leader of the Opposition committing that the Labour Lords will block it? The British people want to stop the boats. The Conservative Government have a plan to stop the boats. This Prime Minister will stop the boats. If the people want closed minds and open borders, they can rely on Labour.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Never have I heard such fabricated rage against genuine attempts to come up with practical solutions for this problem, from a Labour party that has consistently been a policy vacuum on any practical solutions at all. I support this Bill, particularly the provisions for sustainable safe and legal routes for genuine asylum seekers.
My specific question for the Home Secretary is this. When the Home Affairs Committee visited Calais recently we were told that, when the Rwanda scheme was announced, there was a big upsurge in migrants in France approaching authorities asking about staying in France, because there was a deterrent factor. That has not happened because the Rwanda scheme has not got off the ground. When she sees her counterparts in France on Friday, can we suggest that the French might like to join us in a joint Rwanda-type scheme, since they face the same problems? Can they do more? We have safe and legal routes to stop people getting in the boats: to arrest them and stop this illegal trade at source on their side of the channel.
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Deterrence is the key theme running through these measures. We want to send the message loudly and clearly to people smugglers and people thinking about crossing the channel: do not do it. Do not hand over your life savings, do not get in to that flimsy dinghy and do not risk your life, because you will not be entitled to a life in the UK.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The SNP stands proudly behind the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights. We believe that all who seek asylum and refugee status deserve a fair hearing and we are 100% behind the clear statement from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker.
Despite the dreary dog-whistle rhetoric, the Home Secretary’s Bill will not lay a solitary finger on people smugglers or people traffickers, but it will cause serious and devastating harm to those who have already endured incredible suffering. Afghans let down by the Government’s utterly failed relocation schemes will be locked up and offshored. People who have fled persecution in Syria, Eritrea or Iran will remain blocked from the asylum system. The policies that have seen hundreds of children go missing from hotels will be enshrined in her Bill. The world-leading modern slavery legislation piloted through by one of her predecessors is about to be ripped to pieces without a single shred of justification. That is what this appalling Bill looks set to deliver, and that is why we will oppose it every step of the way.
If every country followed the Home Secretary’s example, the whole system of refugee protection around the world would fall to pieces. It is not just that system that will be trashed by this Bill, however, but the UK’s reputation as a place of sanctuary. She spoke about an overwhelmed asylum system, but the only thing that has overwhelmed the asylum system is the Conservative party’s incompetence and mismanagement. One of her own ministerial colleagues described the Rwanda plan as
“ugly, likely to be counterproductive and of dubious legality”,
and that beautifully encapsulates what is in this Bill.
I have two questions for the Home Secretary. First, what happens if an Afghan arrival cannot be removed to Afghanistan, France, Rwanda or anywhere else? Will he or she eventually be admitted to the asylum system? If so, after how long? Secondly, when the Prime Minister meets President Macron, will he be telling him that the UK is prepared to leave the European convention on human rights?
Suella Braverman
A lot of passion and fury and fire—I only wish the Scottish Government would bring so much passion to their approach to accommodating asylum seekers, when Scotland currently takes one of the lowest numbers of asylum seekers in our United Kingdom. Our measures set out a comprehensive and coherent plan, combining fairness and compassion.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Now then. When asked by a reporter if foreign rapists and murderers should be deported to the country they came from, the lawyer of the Opposition replied that it depends. Well, I say get rid. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the Bill will indeed get rid of foreign rapists and murderers?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is right to point out the shameless position that the Labour party has adopted. We have passed measures to make it easier to remove foreign national rapists, drug dealers and murderers. What does the Labour party do? It writes letters to stop us.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
In the Home Affairs Committee report on channel crossings, which was published last summer, we found that small boats have not overwhelmed the asylum system as the Home Secretary is claiming. The backlog has been allowed to grow since 2013, and is now at over 160,000. We said in that report:
“Poor resourcing, by successive governments, of staff and technology in the Asylum Operations function in the Home Office, has been a significant factor in this collapse.”
Our report also found that the Government should deal with the backlog, expand safe and legal routes and negotiate a returns policy with the EU. Can the Home Secretary tell the House what progress has been made on expanding safe and legal routes and on a returns policy with the EU?
Suella Braverman
I think it is clear for everyone to see that our asylum system has been overwhelmed by unprecedented numbers of people arriving here and by the very high numbers being processed currently. We have made good progress, both with the EU and with our counterparts in France, and that is why I am very much looking forward to the Anglo-French summit this Friday, which our Prime Minister will be leading with the French President, to discuss this issue in more detail.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
The balance of creating a strong enough deterrent to cripple the gangs and render the routes unviable, and being fair, is absolutely key, so I appreciate the needle that the Home Secretary is trying to thread and the effort that she has put into this solution. Could she confirm that, under this plan, as the deterrent measures kick in and the asylum backlog is worn down, safe and legal routes will reopen from countries outside Syria, Afghanistan, Hong Kong and Ukraine, and could she give an estimate of when they will reopen?
Suella Braverman
We have several schemes open to people from all nationalities to come here via safe and legal routes. We will, thanks to the Bill, have a more comprehensive discussion and a decision endorsed by Parliament—one that has more legitimacy in how we go forward on allowing safe and legal routes into this country.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
As a child of migrants, can I tell the Home Secretary how much I deplore her seeking to smear migrants as a whole as criminals and rapists? Can I also assure the House that I will never vote for legislation that would have led to my parents being detained and dumped in Rwanda?
The Home Secretary talks about detention and deportation. Where is she going to detain these people? There is not the capacity to detain these numbers of people. In terms of deportation, the only arrangement we have is with Rwanda, which has told us that it can take only 200 people. Her tone, her legislation and her proposed actions are deplorable and unworkable. Even at this late stage, will she reconsider?
Suella Braverman
With respect to the right hon. Lady, it is wrong, naive and inflammatory to conflate people who come here legitimately, abide by our laws and come here on a legal basis with those who come here illegally, break our laws and put themselves and others at risk. I urge her to choose her words carefully.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and the measures that she has set out. What would be her key message to my constituents, who are angry about the use of hotels to house asylum seekers in and around Cannock Chase?
Suella Braverman
The message I would send to my right hon. Friend’s constituents is that we need to stop the boats coming here in the first place. Once we succeed with that objective, through the measures in the Bill, we will be able to stop them being accommodated in hotels.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
The Rwandan Government have said that they are able to take only 200 people. Can the Home Secretary tell the House what will happen to the 44,800 others who are waiting in the system? Does she believe that the £120 million that has gone to Rwanda is value for money? Will she confirm that an additional £12,000 per refugee will be added to the Rwanda bill for processing costs?
Suella Braverman
I am incredibly proud of what the Conservative Government achieved in securing the agreement—the ground-breaking, world-beating agreement—with our friends and allies in Rwanda. I put on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for leading that work. Our scheme with Rwanda was upheld by the High Court at the end of last year. That is a big step forward in our litigation, and we look forward to working with our friends in Rwanda to deliver the agreement.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Although it has been all over the press this morning, West Lindsey District Council has still not been officially informed that the Home Office is planning to place migrants at former Royal Air Force Scampton. We announced just yesterday, after two years of work, a £300 million scheme to have the best ever handover of a Ministry of Defence base—the Home of the Dambusters: business, tourism and heritage. Will the Home Secretary assure me that if she overrides our objections and places migrants there, she will work closely with me and the council to ensure that that is strictly temporary and in no way upsets the best deal that has ever come to north Lincolnshire?
Suella Braverman
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration is working intensively to secure bespoke, appropriate and—importantly—sustainable asylum accommodation around a range of locations within the United Kingdom. We are working with local authorities and Members of Parliament. We want to make the right decision for communities, and that is why all dialogue is welcome.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Torpiki Amrakhil, an Afghan journalist and former announcer on Radio Afghanistan and on the radio station of the United Nations assistance mission in Afghanistan, drowned in Italian waters on the way to Europe. Given the brutality of the Taliban regime and precarious security situation in neighbouring third countries, it is shocking that there is no specific safe route for at-risk Afghan women and girls. We have failed the people of Afghanistan at every stage, and the UK is an outlier in that regard. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to create a specific safe route or to at least ensure that existing promises are kept?
Suella Braverman
Unspeakable tragedy is occurring in the channel and through all maritime routes around the world because of the global migration crisis. That is why it is absolutely essential that the UK takes a robust but compassionate approach. That is at core a humanitarian package of measures that sends the message to people: “Do not come here illegally.”
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s statement. Once we strip away the rhetoric, of course, the key to all this is how we save the lives of the people who are dying while trying to get across the channel and are abused by the traffickers. I listened very carefully to her statement, and I understand all the other features—although we may have a debate about the numbers that she quotes on modern-day slavery problems—but could she expand a little on the issue that stopped the migrants being taken to Rwanda last time, which was the intervention of the European Court of Human Rights? I did not really hear anything in the statement to suggest that anything has changed on that matter.
Suella Braverman
My right hon. Friend is right to identify the difficulties that we had in effecting flights to Rwanda in the summer of last year. As I mentioned, the Strasbourg court issued a rule 39 order pursuant to an opaque process at the last minute without UK representation or right of challenge. We will introduce some detail in the Bill to address that scenario and inject some conditions upon which we will deliver the measures in rule 39.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Empty slogans, chaos and broken promises are all we have heard from the Home Secretary today. Return of failed asylum seekers has collapsed by 80% since Labour left office in 2010. Is that not an extraordinary level of incompetence by this Government?
Suella Braverman
What I find to be irresponsible and, frankly, incompetent is the Labour party voting against our measures to remove foreign national offenders, to streamline our asylum system and to take a firm line on illegal migration.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I broadly welcome the announcement today and measures being put in place to prevent dangerous crossings of the channel, but how precisely will they affect the migrants who are living in hotels near my inland midlands constituency and move them to more appropriate accommodation, perhaps on military land, as the Home Secretary mentioned?
Suella Braverman
Our 10-point plan announced in December deals with the issue of asylum accommodation. It is unacceptable that over 40,000 people are being accommodated in hotels all over the country, at a cost of £6 million a day. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration is therefore working intensively with other Departments and local authorities throughout the country to identify and procure sustainable and appropriate asylum accommodation.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Home Secretary has often said that she would be quite happy if the United Kingdom left the European convention on human rights, and when the Justice Secretary gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights last year, he said that the Government were not ruling out leaving the convention. The Home Secretary said in her statement that she cannot make a definitive statement of compatibility with the ECHR under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which comes as no surprise to most of us. Is the plan behind the Bill simply this: the legislation will go through in the certain knowledge that the domestic courts of the United Kingdom will find that it is incompatible with international law and the ECHR; and then the Tories will fight the next general election on a promise to take the United Kingdom out of the European convention on human rights? That is the whole point of this, is it not?
Suella Braverman
I refer the hon. and learned Lady to her comments on the Rwanda partnership about a year ago. Many people here denounced it as unlawful, cruel and illegitimate, yet not very long go we had an exhaustive and authoritative judgment from the High Court saying the exact opposite—that it is compliant with human rights, compliant with the refugee convention, and lawful.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
The House will remember that in October 2019, 39 illegal migrants were found to have perished in the back of a lorry in my constituency. Following that incident, Essex police and their counterparts in Belgium tracked down and prosecuted a number of people in connection with those crimes. Will the Home Secretary confirm that in the dialogue with France this week, lessons will be learned from that case, and that tracking down the traffickers is very much a part of how we tackle this problem?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to alight on the issue of the criminal gangs and people smugglers, and the importance of the pan-European criminal work that is ongoing to break their business model. We have had about 500 arrests and closed down 50 or so gangs, and work continues intensively with our French counterparts to stop this criminal and evil activity.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Home Secretary told the House earlier that she is confident that these proposals are compatible with the UK’s international obligations. Does that extend to articles 31, 32 and 33 of the 1951 refugee convention?
Suella Braverman
The Bill introduces measures that we consider to be compliant with all our international obligations—in fact, we are certain.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The Bill is very much in the right direction. As my right hon. and learned Friend has just indicated, she needs to consider disapplication of parts of the Human Rights Act that would otherwise enable judges to water down the legislation and the Government’s proper objectives. If we do not deal with Strasbourg judgments and orders, these new proposals cannot work. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will expect amendments to be tabled in Committee. Will she discuss these with us, including aspects of the European convention on human rights and the refugee convention?
Suella Braverman
As we embark on the process of parliamentary scrutiny, my right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister and I will engage fully with all Members of Parliament to hear their concerns and ideas about the Bill. I refer my hon. Friend to clause 1 and the specific disapplication of section 3 of the Human Rights Act, which is an interpretive clause; that will help in this regard.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I have nearly 2,000 people, I think, who have exercised their legal right to claim asylum living in hotels in my constituency—probably more than any other Member of Parliament. I welcome them into my constituency. I have toured the hotels, met many of them and held advice sessions. They come from Afghanistan, Iraq, Kurdistan-Iraq, Iran and Eritrea, and many come from Syria. Some of have shown me their wounds from torture; many are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. They have been in the hotels for 12 to 18 months.
I am amazed by the range of skills and qualifications these people have. They just want employment. They want to be able to contribute. They want a job and to contribute to our society and our economy, but they are trapped in this system because of the lack of processing. I take up their cases and get sheets of the same three or four-sentence responses, and the cases move no further. Could the Home Secretary at least provide the House with a monthly report on how the processing of their cases is proceeding?
May I say one final thing, Mr Speaker? Will the Home Secretary please tone down her inflammatory language? It is putting these people and those who represent them at risk.
Suella Braverman
We are making good progress in bearing down on the legacy backlog in our asylum system. We have increased the number of decision makers and streamlined the decision-making process, and we are increasing productivity. We will continue to bear down on that because it is a big factor in the hotel accommodation issue.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
This is always one of the toughest issues in government, but we are not the only country facing it. Look at the transformation Greece has effected of the situation in the Aegean over the past six or seven years. Although the Bill will change many of the legal aspects, ultimately it is about how we make the system work in practice. What reassurance does my right hon. and learned Friend have that we will be able to create the relevant amount of detention capacity and the necessary amount of removal capacity without affecting other vital immigration and removal work, such as the removal of foreign national offenders?
Suella Braverman
May I put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend? As an excellent Home Office Minister, he shepherded through many of the measures in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 that are now being implemented to combat this challenge. We are building on the achievements of that legislation.
We will roll out a programme of increasing immigration detention capacity, and we are working intensively on that now.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Safaa, a Syrian refugee, escaped from Daesh to save her life. She thinks the Government’s plans will make others in her situation feel suicidal. She told me:
“With the UK Government policy, when you arrive, the dream is broken, it is gone. Still, my family have settled in Wales and contribute to society.”
I want to say to Safaa that she is welcome and that we want to her to stay as long as is necessary. What does the Home Secretary have to say to Safaa?
Suella Braverman
I am proud of our track record of welcoming people through humanitarian routes who are fleeing war, persecution and other conflict, whether from Afghanistan, Syria or Hong Kong. That is a record of which I am proud.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I very much welcome the Government’s renewed commitment to dealing with illegal migration. I am a Kent Member of Parliament, and we are at the frontline of illegal immigration. We are repeatedly told by Government that tough measures will be taken, yet the numbers have gone up. My constituents want tough, decisive action. The Home Secretary says we will be having discussions with our French counterparts. In 2010, we signed the Lancaster House agreement with France on defence and security. How will these new measures address the challenges to ensure that we have tough, decisive action to deal with illegal migration?
Suella Braverman
We struck a new deal with France at the end of last year. That saw an increase in the number of French personnel patrolling the French beaches. It saw a new development, with British Border Force officers being located in France, working side-by-side with French police officers. It has led to greater collaboration and intelligence-sharing, so that we can clamp down on the people-smuggling gangs.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
My grandfather, his brothers and his cousins came to this country in boats, but they came through the British merchant navy and were proud British mariners. They came in, set up in Newcastle and helped the war effort. I am a descendant of them, and this Home Secretary is bringing forward legislation that she knows is not workable. She will not be able to achieve any of this. If we look at the record, she does not have any return agreements. If we look at the policies for what she is going to do with people who are here, she cannot do anything. Is it not the truth that the Bill is purely to do with her political agenda to get votes in red wall seats, but that the expense of doing so is xenophobia and racism, which is not conducive to the interests of our constituents or the country?
Suella Braverman
It is irresponsible to suggest that someone who wants to control our borders and who says that the numbers are out of control and that we need a firm but compassionate line on migration is racist. That is irresponsible, it is wrong, and it should not be put forward.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I warmly welcome the principle of the Bill, not least because the whole House knows that the people traffickers are immoral and utterly heartless, but the elephant in the room, as has already been alluded to, is the ECHR. Unless we can somehow face it down, we will remain tied up in legal knots in our own domestic courts and ultimately in Strasbourg. Can the Home Secretary assure the House that when we see the Bill, it will contain specific measures to do that, so that the Bill will achieve its purpose?
Suella Braverman
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the legal complexity of this issue. There will be measures relating to rule 39 orders, and I refer him to the disapplication of section 3 of the Human Rights Act. That sends a message to the judiciary about how Parliament intends the Bill, when it becomes an Act of Parliament, to be interpreted in the courts.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituent risked his life working for the British forces in Afghanistan. He and his family were invited to the Baron hotel, but because of an explosion, they could not make it, and his family now live in fear in the region. We have been told that because he is a British citizen, his children are not eligible for the Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme. When it comes to splitting up families in that way, Russian war protesters, Iranian democracy protesters or the Afghan judges we have heard about, this Government are failing to provide any safe or legal routes. Is that not what is pushing people into boats and into the arms of the smugglers?
Suella Braverman
The hon. Lady is wrong. We have welcomed almost 500,000 people to the UK who are fleeing persecution, fleeing conflict and fleeing war, from Afghanistan, Syria, Hong Kong and Ukraine. She should acknowledge that great achievement that this country has secured.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who proved that deterrence works—of course deterrence works. I commend the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister for tackling this difficult issue. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, particularly when it comes to economic migrants, there is plenty of room for the wealthy west to do more in their countries to prevent them from coming here in the first place?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is right, as usual. This is where those on the left just go wrong. They naively believe that everyone on a boat is always fleeing persecution, war and conflict. The reality is that many of these people are young, fit and healthy men. Many have paid thousands of pounds to come here and many of them are economic migrants, abusing our asylum laws and our generosity.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
This is a most foul and shameful policy, which depends on dehumanising and criminalising some of the most vulnerable people on this earth, and it is most certainly going to be in contravention of the European convention on human rights. The European Court of Human Rights is overseen by the Council of Europe, and if this Government are determined to break the European convention on human rights, I am certain it will lead to a challenge of the credentials of the delegation from this Parliament to the Council of Europe. Will the Government confirm that their policy is to face suspension or exclusion from the Council of Europe in pursuit of this plan?
Suella Braverman
The package of measures I have brought forward represents a humanitarian set of measures that will, above all, deter people from making a dangerous and sometimes fatal journey in the wild hope that it will lead to a better life in the UK. People must not take the journey, they must not risk their lives and they must not come here illegally.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s strong statement today, which many of my constituents will fully support. It is a perverse system that while the small boat crossings continue, someone’s ability to claim asylum is reliant on their physical fitness or ability to pay. I thank her for being absolutely clear that many tens of millions more people would want to and are entitled to claim asylum than we could ever hope to welcome. In contrast to the calls for open borders from those on the Opposition Benches, we have to be pragmatic and fair. Does she also agree, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) said, that the western world has to unite and deal with poverty in developing nations? Until developing nations are assisted to develop with education, business and trade links, we will see an acceleration of this problem.
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend talks about pragmatism and fairness, and ultimately we are seeing a global migration crisis in which more than 100 million people will be displaced throughout the world. Many of them will want to come to the United Kingdom. The simple truth is that we will not be able to take in everyone who wants to come here, and we therefore need to develop a system that is fair, compassionate and pragmatic.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), I have hundreds of asylum seekers living in hotels in my constituency, and I have met many of them. They have fled war and terror. They want to work and their children are in school. They are living in shocking conditions, while murky layers of contractors and subcontractors are skimming off significant profits. Why is there nothing in the Bill to address the collapse of immigration decision-making that leaves these people in limbo?
Suella Braverman
Our 10-point plan has many elements. We need to introduce legislation to stop the boats coming in the first place. We then need to bear down on our asylum backlog, so that the number of people accommodated in hotels and in limbo is dramatically reduced. That is the fair thing to do. It is the compassionate thing to do.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
People coming across in small boats are smuggled. They spend thousands of pounds to get here. People who are trafficked come here without paying any money or are duped and forced into exploitation. However, many coming across in small boats claim exemption under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Has the Home Secretary taken that into account? I am emphatic that this abuse is damaging the genuine victims of human trafficking.
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It used to take 100 days to consider a modern slavery claim. It now takes more than 500 days, because there has been a massive influx of people claiming to be victims of modern slavery, which impedes our ability to help genuine victims of modern slavery, which is not good for anyone.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the Home Secretary recognise that it is positively Orwellian, as well as morally repugnant, to seek to ban people from seeking asylum unless they use safe and legal routes, as those routes barely exist and, where they do exist, they do not function? One of the very few legal routes is the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme pathway 3, which is a total shambles. As of January this year, according to the House of Commons Library, not one person has arrived in the UK via that pathway. Instead of this shameful, divisive, dog-whistle legislation, will she urgently open and make work safe and legal routes as the only way to stop the small boats?
Suella Braverman
The hon. Lady’s faux outrage is commendable, but the reality is that that is not borne out by the facts. We have accepted nearly 500,000 people through safe and legal routes for humanitarian reasons. That is a track record of which I am proud—I wish she would be, too.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
We have heard a great deal from Opposition Members setting out precisely what they think of my constituents, who believe that we need to control illegal immigration and that the issue of small boats in the channel is a top priority that needs to be brought under control, precisely because it demonstrates that the Government are listening to their priorities and are making sure that this country can control its borders. That being the case, we all hope that the legislation will succeed. Will my right hon. and learned Friend promise that, if it is frustrated by the European convention on human rights, we will commit to leave the convention because, in the end, leave it we must if the legislation is stalled?
Suella Braverman
As we saw last year, the fact that the Strasbourg Court issued a rule 39 order pursuant to an opaque process in which the UK was not represented was deeply regrettable. We are addressing that issue in the Bill to avoid that scenario playing out again. In our view, the Bill complies with our international obligations and we must take these measures promptly.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has just said that, when she stops the boats, the Bill will introduce an annual cap on the number of refugees the UK will resettle via safe and legal routes. That is really putting the cart before the horse. She knows perfectly well that the legal routes are barely there and are failing, so will she consider immediately piloting more and better safe and legal routes from countries such as Afghanistan, where people’s lives are in constant danger?
Suella Braverman
Forgive me, but that question displays the Labour party’s naivety and lack of realism. It is not right to say that everyone coming here is doing so for genuine asylum or humanitarian reasons, which is why we need to take a measured, compassionate and pragmatic approach.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
My constituents are concerned about the number of boats coming across the channel, and they and I welcome the Government’s measures to resolve the problem. The Rwanda scheme remains unenacted and is mired in court action. Some of my constituents are wondering why the democratic will of the Parliament that they have elected is taking so long to be realised. How will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the Bill that she has announced today will not face the same fate?
Suella Braverman
The Rwanda partnership has been tested rigorously in the High Court, which is why I welcome the judgment of senior judges, who upheld the partnership as being lawful and compliant with human rights laws and the refugee convention. It is a big step forward in vindicating the decision on the partnership that we struck with our friends in Rwanda, and we will wait for the outcome of further litigation.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Between October and December last year, one in three people making the journey came from Afghanistan. The Government say that Afghans should use safe and legal routes to get here, but by their own figures only one Afghan was relocated in the month of December through the Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme. Those left behind include people who sacrificed everything in support of the UK’s mission in Afghanistan. Many of them have been brutally murdered by the Taliban and many more will undoubtedly be killed. Can the Home Secretary say that she will honour the commitments made to those who served alongside us in Afghanistan and, if she will honour those commitments, how will she ensure that they receive safe passage?
Suella Braverman
As I have mentioned quite a few times, but it bears repetition, we have been proud to welcome 20,000 people from Afghanistan who have fled the troubles and the Taliban. We have a family reunification scheme to enable family members to join their family here. That is a record of which we should be proud and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to support it.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
Can the Home Secretary reconfirm that the Bill will stop illegal entry being a route to our asylum system, and what effect does she think that it will have on the number of people willing to pay evil people traffickers to cross the channel?
Suella Braverman
Deterrence is a core aim of these measures. We need to send the message that, if someone comes here illegally on a boat, paying a people smuggler, they will not have an entitlement to life in the UK. That is why I urge everyone here to get behind the Bill.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Like many who are genuinely interested in supporting those who want to solve these problems, I have concerns about this approach, both in principle and in practice. The issues in communities that the Government uses as a straw man are, in fact, the result of a decade of systematic underfunding and neglect in health, housing and education. Instead of scapegoating the vulnerable, encouraging conspiracy and aggression, when will the Home Secretary get a grip on the chaos in her Department, whose processing rates have collapsed, along with conviction rates for people smugglers? When will she stop scapegoating and start solving?
Suella Braverman
Far from scapegoating the vulnerable, this is about protecting the vulnerable. This is about empowering our authorities properly to support genuine victims of modern slavery. This is about enabling a swifter resolution of genuine asylum claims. This is about enabling greater, safer and legal routes. This is not scapegoating—this is about protection.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
If moving people to Hereford is the solution, may I welcome everything that my right hon. and learned Friend has said? We British people have rights as well, so can she put her shoulder to the wheel for my constituents, too?
Suella Braverman
This is about our humanitarian approach, but it is also about fairness. My hon. Friend is right—the British people’s famous sense of fair play and generosity has been tested beyond limit, which is why it is necessary to go further than we have gone before and make sure that we have a robust scheme in place that actually stops the boats.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The Home Secretary must have been shocked to discover that she and her party have been in charge of the Home Office for the past 13 years, during which time the backlog of asylum claims has done nothing but mushroom. The number of children who have been waiting more than a year for their asylum application to be considered has risen twelvefold. Rapid decision making is part of the effective deterrence which she claims to want. Why was this allowed to happen, when will she get a grip and why does passing the same piece of legislation yet again make a difference?
Suella Braverman
If we go down the path of comparing backlogs, the Labour party will be found wanting. The backlog with which we are dealing bears no comparison whatsoever with what the Labour party left us with in 2010.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
I warmly welcome the legislation. Will the Home Secretary confirm that running through it is the central theme that the only route to asylum in the UK is a safe and legal route, with an annual cap on the number of refugees? The annual cap is the crucial point. This is democratic accountability. Migration must be based on the country’s capacity and capability to house and support people. We cannot have open borders, whatever the other side pontificates. May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend when we will vote on the migration cap? I welcome her statement, as it is exactly what my voters want—well done to the Home Secretary.
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend speaks a lot of sense. The British people did not vote for 40,000 people to arrive here on small boats. They did not vote for our immigration laws to be broken. They voted for representatives to serve in this place to speak up for them. That is why I urge every Member of this House to get behind this Bill and stop the boats.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
According to the statistics quoted by the Home Secretary last year, 17,000 referrals took on average 543 days to consider. Among those were the asylum seekers staying in a hotel in my constituency. I have engaged with them, along with my MSP colleague Stuart McMillan, on an ongoing basis since they arrived. The Home Office has not. It has not talked to those guys; it has not stopped the process. Would the Home Secretary consider expanding the shortage occupation list to allow them to work? Those young men want to contribute to the society in which they have been welcomed.
Suella Braverman
Aside from humanitarian routes into this country, we also have an extensive points-based system, which we developed post Brexit. Thanks to our freedom on migration, we have issued a record number of work and study visas in the last year alone. People who want to come here for legitimate reasons should go through our points-based system.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
My constituents on the south Kent coast have seen with their own eyes the rapid increase in small boat crossings in the past few years. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that our priority must be to stop these dangerous journeys, and that the most effective way to do that is to demonstrate that they cannot be a shortcut into the asylum system and will not lead to permanent residency in the UK?
Suella Braverman
Getting into a flimsy dinghy wearing a thin polystyrene excuse for a life jacket, paying thousands of pounds, breaking our laws and putting one’s life at risk is not the way to come to the United Kingdom. That is what this Bill is all about.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Home Secretary will be aware that the bulk of the 500,000 people she says have come through safe and legal routes are from Ukraine and Hong Kong. Regarding Afghanistan, she will also know that, in the whole of the last year, since the new safe route was put in place, only 22 individuals from Afghanistan have been accepted through that route. Is it any surprise to the Home Secretary, then, that 8,500 Afghans made a small boat crossing to the UK last year? Having rendered meaningless any safe and legal route from Afghanistan, where does the Home Secretary believe she derives the moral authority to criminalise those 8,500 people simply because of their mode of travel?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It is really important, if we are going to get everybody in, that the questions are very short, as the answers have been. It is really important for colleagues to remember that.
Suella Braverman
Regarding Operation Pitting, we have received 20,000 people from Afghanistan—fleeing the Taliban, fleeing conflict and fleeing persecution. I am very proud of Britain’s track record. That is one among many safe routes through which people have come to the UK.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
The people of Doncaster and Don Valley have welcomed people from all around the world, including recently through the Ukraine scheme, but they also now realise that we are full. Will the Home Secretary confirm to the House and to the people of Doncaster whether an illegal immigrant who arrives on our shores would ever be granted leave to remain?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is right. We are at unsustainable levels of people coming here illegally. It is putting unsustainable pressure on our accommodation, our public services and our resources. That cannot continue. That is why we need to adopt a different approach when it comes to dealing with asylum cases.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box last week and committed that the Government
“will remain a member of the ECHR”—[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 594.]
because leaving it would break the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Does the Home Secretary agree?
Suella Braverman
We are clear that the measures in the Bill comply with our international law obligations. We are pleased to be proceeding with it and I encourage the hon. Lady to back it.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
I hope the whole House will welcome and support my right hon. and learned Friend’s proposals, because my constituents have rightly been frustrated by our inability thus far to tackle illegal migration and control our borders. This is not about demonising genuine refugees or turning our back on those in need, but about stopping illegal activity and ensuring that our long tradition of offering safe haven to those who are truly persecuted is not undermined by those who abuse our hospitality and break our laws.
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Making progress on stopping illegal migration will enable us to better support genuine victims of modern slavery or human trafficking with asylum. That is what this country is about, and I am very proud of that.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Government will shortly be announcing their sixth immigration Bill since I arrived in the House in 2015, which tells us everything we need to know about their failures on immigration policy. However, I want to ask about the content of the Bill. Will the Home Secretary tell the House that she will not seek to revisit ouster clauses to prevent judicial review and that she will be mindful of the 2019 Supreme Court ruling that the presence of such clauses does not prevent a judicial review challenge based on an error of law?
Suella Braverman
I hope that the hon. Gentleman, on closer inspection of the Bill, will see what we have put forward. We will dramatically reduce the avenues and options for legal challenge, which are often used to thwart removal. It is important that we do that—within the law—to ensure that our operations can be delivered effectively.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the introduction of this legislation. She has made it clear that she intends to secure that the only route to asylum in the UK is a safe and legal route with an annual cap on the number of refugees. That is the correct and humane approach. Does she agree that those who advocate another approach are doing no favours to the migrants or indeed to their own constituents?
Suella Braverman
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Having safe and legal routes, capped and legitimised through a decision by Parliament, is the right way to support people seeking refuge in this country—not perpetuating an evil trade in people smuggling.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Afghan refugee children who were about to take their GCSEs in schools in my constituency have been forced to move 200 miles from the hotel they have spent the last 18 months in to other hotels. No school places were arranged for them in the places where they were going, and the Home Office initially denied that they had been moved at all. Is that the level of competence the Home Secretary is happy with? Will she look at those cases and at her whole policy on immigration, which is just failing?
Suella Braverman
When we introduced measures to streamline our asylum process and hasten decision making, the Labour party voted against them. Seriously, the hon. Gentleman cannot now complain when there are challenges with accommodating people, because they are waiting for an asylum decision and they are being housed in hotels.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
My constituents are rightly proud of this country’s historic record of providing sanctuary to those in need, but they are deeply unhappy about the numbers of small boats crossing and the economic migrants. They are also deeply distressed to see men, women and children losing their lives in the channel at the hands of people traffickers. Will my right hon. and learned Friend do all she can to ensure that these plans strike the right balance, ending these illegal and dangerous crossings, but also ensuring that we can provide sanctuary to those who arrive here legally?
Suella Braverman
Yes, these measures make it clear that if someone is going to be exploited by people smugglers to embark on a treacherous and illegal journey so that they can come here to make a spurious asylum claim, they will not be able to settle here and will not have a life in the United Kingdom. Safe and legal routes will be available to them.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
It is the oldest trick in the book. When poverty is rising and the rich are getting richer, when wages are falling and people are struggling, the powerful say that the problem is not really bosses or Government cuts, but migrants and refugees. That is what is happening when the Home Secretary whips up fear about an invasion on the south coast and announces this pledge to cut up our commitment to the UN refugee convention. She is demonising people who come here by boat while refusing to create new safe and legal routes for refugees. How many refugees will she lock up before she accepts that we need a compassionate approach, not this callous and cruel policy?
Suella Braverman
I refuse to take lectures from a Member of Parliament who wrote a letter to the Home Office to ensure that a foreign national offender, who had been convicted of serious and heinous crimes, was not deported from this country. That person then went on to murder—a shameful stain on the Labour party.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I am reassured by what I have heard from the Home Secretary: that the operation of this excellent Bill will not be frustrated by the European convention on human rights. As we have heard, however, Opposition Members will be encouraging their friends in the activist lawyer community to do everything they can to use Labour’s rights framework to obstruct the law. I hope that she will work with us to strengthen the Bill and defend it from that. On safe and legal routes, which we absolutely need, I encourage her to make more use of the community sponsorship scheme, which has been useful for Ukrainians.
Suella Braverman
The community sponsorship scheme is a good scheme that enables the settlement of people who are seeking refuge in this country. My hon. Friend talks about activist lawyers. I will tell hon. Members who the biggest activist lawyer is: he is leading the Labour party.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
This is not being done in our name. We did not vote to leave the ECHR, we did not vote for Brexit, and we did not vote for refugees fleeing unimaginable horrors to be detained and deported to Rwanda. Does the Home Secretary not have a shred of compassion for what people—children and families—are going through? Will she create more safe and legal routes so that people can actually access safety, rather than being stuck rotting in war zones?
Suella Braverman
The hon. Lady talks about what people did or did not vote for. The British people did not vote for 45,000 people to come here illegally or for £6 million to be spent every day on hotel accommodation. The British people did not vote for the abuse of our generosity. The compassionate thing that we need to do is pass this Bill.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and intent. We have had a policy of housing illegal migrants and asylum seekers in hotels up and down this country, which has caused massive community tensions and put strains on public services. Can she confirm when that will end and how much that will save the British taxpayer?
Suella Braverman
We are spending £3 billion a year on supporting the asylum backlog and £6 million a day on hotel accommodation, which is valuable taxpayers’ money that should not be diverted to those purposes. We need to stop the boats, bear down on the backlog and save the British taxpayer valuable money.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
My office deals with outstanding asylum cases week in, week out, as I am sure do those of many MPs up and down the country. Despite promises that the situation would improve, we are still waiting an unacceptably long time for updates from the Home Office. Why is there nothing in the Bill to address the fact that 160,000 people are currently awaiting a decision—a 60% increase on the previous year?
Suella Braverman
We are making good progress on bearing down on the asylum backlog. We have increased the number of decision makers, we have improved the levels of productivity, we have streamlined the guidance, and we are making sure that we are processing the claims individually, on a case-by-case basis, more swiftly. That is how we will remove people from hotel accommodation and bear down on the costs.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
I strongly support the Illegal Migration Bill, which is a major step forward in stopping the small boats. Can my right hon. Friend provide more details on how it will radically narrow the number of challenges and appeals that can suspend removal?
Suella Braverman
We have made it clear that there will be a duty on the Home Secretary to make arrangements for a removal, and that removal will be suspended only in the event that the claimant can establish that they face a serious risk of irreversible harm should they be removed. In all other instances, that person will be removed and they can make their claim from the safe country or the country to which they have been removed.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
York is England’s only human rights city and we have welcomed asylum seekers. It is a privilege to provide a safe haven for them, but this legislation is a real affront to those values. Can the Home Secretary publish the legal advice on how her legislation is compatible not only with international law but with the European convention on human rights?
Suella Braverman
As a former Attorney General, I know that the Government abide by the Law Officers’ convention, which means that neither the fact nor the content of legal advice is disclosed. That would be a decision for the Attorney General. We are very clear, however, that our Bill complies with international obligations, so we urge all hon. Members to support it.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister for listening to me and many people in Hinckley and Bosworth and across the country who want illegal immigration and the boat crossings to stop. Can she tell us practically how long she expects it to take to bring the legislation forward? More importantly, will Border Force have the resources to implement it?
Suella Braverman
We are introducing the Bill today and we hope that the parliamentary authorities will allow us to move swiftly on its progress. We want to start scrutinising and voting on the measures put forward as quickly as possible, because we want to get them on the statute book and operationalised as soon as possible. It is an urgent challenge and we need to move quickly.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I am the daughter of immigrants. My parents’ generation faced injustice through the mistakes made by the Windrush scheme, which are taking years to unravel. Last year set a record high for small boat crossings, with 46,000 arrivals. Why on earth should our constituents trust the Conservative Government, when under them, small boat crossings are going up rather than coming down?
Suella Braverman
I am glad that the hon. Lady mentioned Windrush, because I am proud of our achievements to date to right the wrongs that were committed. More than £60 million has been offered or paid out to the claimants and we are resolving many of the outstanding cases. I have engaged closely with members of the steering group and with Bishop Webley, and I am encouraged by the progress that we are making to resolve the issue.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary confirm that the Bill will prevent illegal migrants, especially the 80,000 from EU accession countries, from abusing our modern slavery laws to prevent their return home? On supporting the most vulnerable, will she confirm that she will create more legal migration routes, alongside an annual quota, and encourage the Department for Work and Pensions to do more to provide skills to refugees who have the right to work so that they can contribute to our country in the way that they want to?
Suella Braverman
One of the benefits of the measures in the Bill will be an enhanced ability to support genuine asylum seekers and genuine victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. Our ability is severely impeded at the moment, because of the overwhelming number of claims in our system, many of which are illegitimate and spurious. They are clogging up our system so that we are unable to properly support those who genuinely need it.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
When the people of Clydebank, Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven contact me, they wonder why the Conservative and Unionist party is creating a new Bill of dubious moral and legal standing when it could just continue the long-running strategy of driving public services into the ground, making Britain poorer than all of our northern European neighbours and therefore decreasing the pull factors of migration. Finally, they wonder about the Home Secretary’s incredible—and I think absurd—claim that 100 million people are ready to come to the UK, and they want to say to the Home Secretary that it is going to take a lot more than a Bill copied and pasted from the Policy Exchange paper to make a difference.
Suella Braverman
The hon. Member’s so-called absurd claim is actually backed up by the United Nations. More importantly, it is frankly naive to suggest that everybody coming here on a boat is a genuine asylum seeker fleeing for humanitarian reasons. The reality is that many of these people are economic migrants who are abusing our asylum system, and that is what this Bill aims to stop.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said that we need solutions, not slogans, so could my right hon. and learned Friend please tell me of a single proposal the right hon. Lady has made that is anything more than an empty slogan? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with me that Labour Members do not have a plan, and they do not really want one either because they simply do not take this issue seriously?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Leader of the Opposition made a grand show of his five great missions to fix the country. Tellingly, he omitted stopping the boats. Either he does not care about illegal migration, or he does not know what to do about it.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The people in my constituency were outraged by the fact that last year there were just four prosecutions for people smuggling a month, while 46,000 people crossed the channel. Why is there nothing in this Government’s widely trailed plans to tackle these criminal gangs?
Suella Braverman
Tackling the criminal gangs at the root of this problem is absolutely essential. That is why we have increased our funding to the NCA to ensure that there is better operationalising, better intelligence sharing and better co-operation with European partners, and that is why I am very pleased that many criminal gangs have been shut down and 500 convictions have been secured.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
The Ukraine and Afghanistan schemes clearly show the enormous compassion of the British people, but the reality is that the abuse of the system, particularly the use of hotels for people seeking asylum, saps that compassion. Does the Home Secretary agree with me that we have to end the use of hotels and that this Bill will be a crucial part of that? Can she say when she hopes to be able to lay out a plan to put a timetable on ending the use of hotels?
Suella Braverman
I know from my hon. Friend’s representations that in his community there are particular challenges with people in hotels. We are using hotels to accommodate asylum seekers because there are too many people coming here illegally. Once we stop the business model of people coming here illegally, we will be able to stop the use of hotels.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
There has to be a strong deterrent when these criminal gangs are found people smuggling. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) has said, there were only four prosecutions per month against 46,000 crossings last year. How is the Home Secretary going to target the criminal gangs? When they are caught, they have to know that they are going to be punished for their evil trade.
Suella Braverman
I actually joined a dawn raid with the National Crime Agency a few months ago as it was going to arrest a people smuggler. There is a huge programme of work ongoing to ensure that there is proper intelligence sharing, proper resource and adequate funding to take a tough line against the criminal, evil people-smuggling gangs.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
Constituents in Southend West will warmly welcome the fact that this Government are taking a clear stand against illegal immigration, breaking the business model that the vile people-smuggling gangs depend on and stopping the boats. However, one of the most common complaints I hear on the doorstep is about expensive hotels housing asylum seekers while homelessness, sometimes including our armed forces veterans, is on the rise. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with me that that is not just unfair on the British taxpayer, but deeply unfair on those genuinely in need who are waiting patiently and legally for a roof over their heads?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak for the good people of Southend West in the way she does. The reality is that we have far too many people coming here. They put pressure on our accommodation, and therefore we are now forced to accommodate them in the expensive hotel estate. That cannot continue. It is costly, it is inappropriate and, frankly, it is unfair on the asylum seeker, because it is no fit place to stay for an indefinite period of time.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
Imagine being a Tory Home Secretary whose party is supported by barely one in five people having the arrogance to stand up in this Chamber and talk about a patriotic majority being taken for a ride. Imagine having the absolute audacity to stand up in this Chamber and tell this House that there are 100 million people around the world and they are all coming here. No, they are not. The only way this Minister can prove that this is anything other than crass, dog-whistle politics is to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) from the Front Bench: if she was serious, why would she be bringing forward legislation that barely lays a glove on the people smugglers?
Suella Braverman
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will tell you what is audacious. It is for SNP Members to naively claim that everybody coming here is a genuine refugee or asylum seeker, and then to fail to take their fair share of accommodation. They have wholly failed to properly accommodate asylum seekers, demonstrating a paltry number compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I always enjoy crossing swords with the Opposition. The people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke will warmly welcome what the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have delivered today, although they would be even warmer if we at the very least said we would be derogating from the ECHR in this particular case. However, while Labour Members use their confected outrage on the Opposition Benches here in Westminster, Stoke-on-Trent Labour members keep their heads buried in the sand, with councillors and candidates refusing to make any comments on immigration policy, because they know what the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke think. They refused to sign a petition to empty the hotels in Stoke-on-Trent, which I started and brought to this House. Will the Home Secretary tell me when the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke can expect to see their hotels cleared and emptied, and will it be as soon as possible?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the failure by the Labour party to properly address this subject. The Leader of the Opposition does not mention it in his five big missions, because he does not care and he does not know. Labour Members vote against every measure we put forward to deport foreign national offenders and streamline our asylum system. They would scrap the Rwanda partnership. They write letters to stop our deportation of serious foreign criminals. That is what today’s Labour party is like. Colleagues, the fight-back starts now.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Britain is and should remain a beacon for LGBT rights, so can I ask Home Secretary a particular question about LGBT asylum seekers who are coming to the UK, fleeing persecution because of their sexuality—who they love and who they are—and who do not come from a country where there is an existing safe route? Will they be deported back to that country where they are being abused, or will they be deported to Rwanda, where the FCO’s travel advice says:
“LGBT individuals…experience discrimination and abuse, including from local authorities”?
Can the Home Secretary reassure a gay MP here like myself that we are not turning our back on LGBT asylum seekers who are fleeing appalling abuse simply for being themselves?
Suella Braverman
What I would gently say to the hon. Gentleman is that the fundamental objective in this legislation is to stop people leaving safe countries to come to the United Kingdom and claim asylum. That is the fundamental principle running through our international obligations, whether it is the refugee convention or other conventions. If people are coming here from a safe country, they really should not be claiming asylum in the first place.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
I was horrified to hear that those on the Opposition Benches feel that this is about xenophobia and racism, scapegoating and dog-whistle politics. This is a simple matter of fairness—fairness for my constituents, who work hard and do the right thing, who see other people who arrive here illegally able to access the taxpayer-funded housing and support that they themselves struggle to access. They have been frustrated by delays and problems in implementing these measures to prevent that from happening, so can my right hon. and learned Friend give her absolute assurance that she is willing to do whatever is necessary to get the outcomes that my constituents deserve?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is right. His constituents deserve fairness, pragmatism and compassion in controlling our borders. It is not racist to say there is too much illegal migration. It is not racist to say we cannot go on spending £6 million on hotel accommodation. It is not bigoted to say people should not be breaking the law to come here. It is fair, it is pragmatic and it is compassionate.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I represent an airport seat and have a number of hotels currently in use in my constituency, but for 19 months one hotel in particular has since the fall of Kabul been used by Afghans. Is it a competency issue that we cannot process their claims, or is it a confidence issue? I think it is a confidence issue, because the civil service has lost confidence in this Administration carrying out any effective policies whatsoever.
Suella Braverman
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to keep in mind the global and indeed European dimension to this problem. Other EU nations are grappling with unprecedented levels of illegal migration. Some countries are saying they are going to stop accommodating people and instead let them abscond willingly. Some countries are accommodating migrants in sports halls and inappropriate accommodation. This is a global challenge and we have to take measures to deal with it.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
This Parliament and this nation must be sovereign when it comes to controlling our borders. It is completely unacceptable that a foreign court can seek to inhibit the wishes of the elected Government of the day. Although I strongly welcome the measures outlined by the Home Secretary, what assurances can she give to the House that these new measures, and indeed our Rwandan policy, can be implemented without interference from foreign judges?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is right to highlight concerns about the process to which we have been subject from Strasbourg. That is why there is a clause in the Bill relating to rule 39, and we will be closely specifying the details of what we are going to propose. In the meantime, I greatly welcome the vindication by the High Court of our Rwandan partnership in December. We now proceed to the Appeal Court and we wait to see what the courts and their justices decide.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Wandsworth is proud to have welcomed refugees for hundreds of years and to be a borough of sanctuary. This Bill sounds like a charter for lawyers. This retread of failed policies relies on returns to third countries; that was in last year’s Nationality and Borders Act 2022, but 99% of people were not returned because the Government do not have return agreements. Will the Home Secretary give us a list now of the return agreements currently being negotiated and the deadline for reaching those new agreements, because we will need to know before we vote on this Bill?
Suella Braverman
We have been in negotiations with several countries, which is why I welcomed the agreement the Prime Minister struck with Albania at the end of last year. Let me be clear: we welcome the contributions of Albanians who come here lawfully, but we need to work together with the Albanian Government to properly relocate back to Albania those who do not have a legal right to be here.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
People in Stoke-on-Trent are fed up with being ignored and having their generosity taken for granted, and I fully support the measures being introduced today. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that these actions will be taken swiftly and we will see deportations of those here illegally as soon as possible?
Suella Braverman
The matter is now urgent and we need to move quickly. That is why we have brought the Bill forward today. We hope to proceed with a swift timetable in Parliament. I urge all Members of Parliament to support this Bill; we must scrutinise it effectively, but we want to get on and get the powers on to the statute book and deliver them in material terms as soon as possible.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Every week I have more asylum seekers asking for my help to progress their claims. Some have waited for up to a year; most have waited several. They are left languishing at home, awaiting an appointment or a decision and are desperate to get on with their lives; many are now blighted with mental and other illnesses. Is this latest stunt by the Home Secretary not yet another attempt to direct attention away from her failure to deal with the escalating backlog, which has grown constantly for years on end?
Suella Braverman
The challenges the hon. Gentleman describes that are faced by asylum seekers are exactly why he should support the Bill. We want to reduce the number of people coming here illegally. We want to reduce the number of people waiting for a decision in the asylum backlog. Only by supporting this Bill will we be able to support the genuine asylum seekers in this country.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I welcome the proposed legislation, but the reality is that we need the confidence of the British people in our immigration system. To give additional confidence to local residents in Carlisle and other provincial towns and cities, will the Minister agree to an immediate moratorium on the use of hotels?
Suella Braverman
When someone is waiting for an asylum decision, there is a duty on the Home Office to accommodate them and provide them with appropriate support. Therefore, we have been forced to use hotel accommodation in many towns and cities across the United Kingdom. It is important that appropriate support is provided to asylum seekers to avoid destitution and homelessness.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I have the situation in my constituency where businesses are unable to recruit staff yet living upstairs are asylum seekers who are unable to work. The Home Secretary has talked about the cost to the UK of housing asylum seekers; when is she going to get realistic about this and allow people waiting for their asylum claims to be decided to access the world of work?
Suella Braverman
Many people, such as those who have come here under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme or the Ukrainian scheme, are able to work in this country, and many of them do. I encourage all Members to support people in those communities to find work through their local jobcentres.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree that, despite the noise and howls from Opposition Members, we are forgetting that these measures will save lives—that people would otherwise be drowning in the channel or suffocating in the backs of lorries? Stopping the boats is the compassionate thing to do, and the only thing Labour’s open border policies would do is enrich people smugglers and risk death in the channel.
Suella Braverman
Fundamentally, these are human-itarian measures that we are bringing forward with precisely the goal my hon. Friend sets out. We need to stop people dying in the channel. We need to stop people being exploited by criminal gangs. We need to stop the criminality. That is why I encourage everybody to get behind the Bill.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
As of September last year, the backlog of asylum applications stood at 115,000 and might include some economic migrants. The average waiting time for an initial decision is 20 months. Does the Home Secretary recognise the moral hazard here: economic migrants coming here in small boats have no incentive to guard against the risk of entering those boats, because others have been protected by her Government against the consequences of being returned when they get here, which damages the protections for genuine asylum seekers?
Suella Braverman
The vast majority of people arriving via small boats have chosen to make that journey of their own free will. They have paid money, and they are largely young, healthy men. There is no good reason in many instances for them to claim asylum, and they should not be abusing our asylum rules to do so.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
On behalf of all the residents of Gedling who have raised the issue of small boats with me, may I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s statement? Will she confirm that the forthcoming legislation will end the morally reprehensible practice whereby smugglers are a de facto part of the asylum process, and does she agree that, given the dangers of cross-channel smuggling, a robust approach is right, fair and humane?
Suella Braverman
One of the root causes of this problem is the proliferation of sophisticated, well co-ordinated and well-resourced criminal gangs operating across transnational boundaries on the continent. That is why we have increased resources for the National Crime Agency and increased co-operation and intelligence sharing with the French. Only by working together with our European partners will we be able to smash the business model of the people smugglers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
For myself, for the Secretary of State and for many there is a need to help and protect the vulnerable. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that with the better weather there will undoubtedly be a rise in the numbers making illegal crossings? Does she believe that we should engage further with the French authorities to facilitate legal migration in a more structured way? Will the Bill enable those who seek asylum legally to be processed efficiently, while sending the clear message that if they come here illegally, asylum will automatically be denied?
Suella Braverman
We institute in the Bill some procedural requirements and limitations on legal claims, and time limits for bringing those claims. The aim is to reduce attempts to thwart removal and detention, and it strikes the right balance between fairness and compassion.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
On behalf of the people of Bassetlaw, I warmly welcome the Bill introduced by the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, which we have been crying out for. The Opposition often speak of safe and legal routes, which of course we already have, but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that what they actually mean is that they support open borders, blanket approvals and amnesties for those who want to want to cheat our system, cheat our constituents and cheat genuine refugees?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend puts it very well. Labour’s policy on this issue is indeed open borders. A former Labour Home Secretary did grant an amnesty to asylum seekers. It is about ensuring that illegal migration continues through the back door. That is not what the British people voted for; that is not what this Parliament will vote for.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It will not have escaped the Home Secretary’s notice that despite what I have no doubt have been the best efforts of her Government Whips, they have not found a single Member of Parliament from a Scottish constituency to have a single good word to say about the Bill. The fact is that Scotland’s MPs, Scotland’s Government, Scotland’s local authorities and Scotland’s people speak as one in saying that our biggest complaint about the UK asylum system is that her Government will not allow us to welcome as many refugees and asylum seekers as we want to. May I make a suggestion to the Home Secretary? Will she agree, even on a temporary pilot basis, to allow the Scottish Government to take control of our asylum system? We will see whether the best way to deal with asylum seekers is to treat them like human beings or to treat them in the way she wants to treat them.
Suella Braverman
All the Scottish National party can point to is a track record of failure when it comes to discharging its humanitarian duties to asylum seekers. It totally failed to support Ukrainians and had to hand over responsibility to the UK Government. It totally failed to take its fair share of refugees in comparison to other parts of the UK. It is failure, failure, failure from the SNP.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend think it is fair to deduce from today’s debate that the Labour party thinks it is totally fine to turn up here illegally and stay here for as long as you want? Does she think it is fair to assume that it opposes any kind of cap on refugee numbers? Does she agree that that is hardly surprising, bearing in mind that the leader of the Labour party, in a different guise, said that there is a
“racist undercurrent which permeates all immigration law”?
That was the Leader of the Opposition when he was a human rights lawyer. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with me that the Labour party should just be honest about what it is: pro open borders, anti any control on immigration and completely out of step with the majority of people of this country? It will be exposed.
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend puts it very powerfully. That is what Labour’s policy is: uncontrolled immigration, open borders, an amnesty for asylum seekers and a total disregard for what the British people want.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
How can we know if someone is a genuine asylum seeker or not, unless they are allowed to make a claim and that claim is fairly and independently assessed? When was the last time the Home Secretary actually met another human being who had come here on a small boat? Has she ever listened to their stories of what they have gone through and what their hopes for the future are? Or does she just look them in the eye and tell them they are not welcome here?
Suella Braverman
The reality is that we need to all work together now to find a pragmatic, compassionate and fair solution to this problem. That is why I have introduced these measures today and why I encourage all Members to support them.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Last week, we saw with the revised Northern Ireland protocol deal what progress can be made when we work collaboratively with our European partners. Rather than the sabre-rattling content of this statement, is not the reality that the most effective way to deal with the issue of small boats crossing the channel is to work in full collaboration with our European partners? Is it not the case that the number of small boat crossings has increased substantially since Brexit?
Suella Braverman
The reality is that we have developed much closer co-operation with our French partners on this very issue. That is why I am pleased that we struck a good deal with them at the end of last year. The Prime Minister is heading to Paris—I will be accompanying him—later this week to talk further with our French partners on how to tackle this issue, among many others.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for responding to questions for an hour and 50 minutes.
Science and Technology Framework
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Michelle Donelan)
The creation of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology marks a watershed moment for science, innovation and technology in the UK. We now have a Government Department that focuses on a single mission: to make the UK a science and technology superpower. Science and technology is absolutely critical to the UK’s future prosperity and security, and to the health and wellbeing of our citizens and our environment. That is why it is a central pillar of the integrated review. Countries that embrace science and technology will be prosperous and secure, home to the innovators and technology companies of the future. Those that don’t, won’t.
My vision for DSIT starts from an extraordinary position. Last year, the UK joined only China and the US in having a technology sector worth over $1 trillion. Despite our relative size, Britain outperforms our closest competitors and we are a main challenger nation to the US and China in many areas. We have four of the world’s top 10 universities. Just eight of our university towns are home to more unicorns than the whole of France and Germany combined. However, when other countries are investing further and faster in science and tech, we must do the same. We have an incredibly unique and powerful platform from which to grow and innovate for the benefit of the British people, which is why I have said I plan to take a ruthlessly outcome-focused approach to this new Department.
I will ensure that in both the short term and the long term, our work is based on improving people’s daily lives in ways they can feel and see around them. The Government’s vision for the future is an NHS that uses artificial intelligence to find, treat and reduce illnesses such as cancer and heart disease, so we have more time with our loved ones. We should have local transport services that allow us to travel faster, safer and cleaner than our parents did. The schools of the future should be powered by the kinds of technology that unlock hidden talents in every child, no matter where they live. As the “Department for the Future”, our focus will be on how science, technology and innovation can ensure the British people live longer, safer, healthier and happier lives.
Such an important goal requires immediate action, which is why in my first few weeks as Technology Secretary I have been focused relentlessly on action and delivery. I see this as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to send a clear signal around the world that Britain plans to lead the way in science, innovation and technology. The key steps we have taken are as follows.
Yesterday, we published the UK science and technology framework, which sets out our goals and vision for science and technology in an enduring framework that will see us through to 2030. It has been developed in close collaboration with the UK science and technology sector, and represents a commitment to scaling our ambitions and delivering the most critical action needed to secure strategic advantage through science and technology. The framework is the strategic anchor that Government policy will deliver against, and to which the Government will hold themselves accountable. It sets out 10 things that the Government must do to sustain strategic advantage in science and technology.
First, we must identify the technologies most critical to the UK’s objectives. Secondly, we must signal the UK’s science and technology strengths and ambitions both at home and abroad to attract talent and investment and boost our global influence. Thirdly, we must boost private and public investment in research and development for economic growth and better productivity.
Fourthly, we must build on the UK’s already amazing talent and skills base. Fifthly, we must finance innovative science and technology companies. Sixthly, we must use Government procurement to stimulate innovation in key sectors and technologies. Seventhly, we must take international opportunities to shape the global science and technology landscape through strategic international engagement, diplomacy and partnerships.
Eighthly, we must ensure that science and technology objectives are supported by access to the best physical and digital infrastructure that will attract talent, investment and discoveries. Ninthly, we must leverage post-Brexit freedoms to create world-leading pro-innovation regulation and influence global technological standards. Tenthly, we must create a pro-innovation culture throughout the UK’s public sector to improve the way our public services run.
We have also taken immediate steps. The delivery of this new framework will begin immediately with an initial raft of projects worth around £500 million, of which £370 million is new money. That will ensure that the UK has the skills and infrastructure to take a global lead in game-changing technologies. That includes £250 million of investment in three truly transformational technologies to build on the UK’s leadership in AI, quantum technologies and engineering biology. That funding will help a range of industries tackle the biggest global challenges such as climate change and healthcare and will form part of our commitment to the five key technologies, which include semiconductors and future telecommunications.
We have also published Sir Paul Nurse’s “Independent Review of the UK’s Research, Development and Innovation Organisational Landscape”, with recommendations to make the most of the UK’s research organisations, testing different science funding models to support a range of innovative institutional models, such as focused research organisations, working with industry and partners to open up new funding opportunities. Up to £50 million will spur co-investment in science from the private sector and philanthropists, to drive the discoveries of the future, subject to business cases. The Government are already in talks with Schmidt Futures, a philanthropic initiative by Eric and Wendy Schmidt, about additional support of up to $20 million as part of that work.
Some £117 million of existing funding will create hundreds of new PhDs for AI researchers, and £8 million will help to find the next generation of AI leaders around the world. A £50 million uplift to world-class labs funding will help research institutes and universities to improve facilities, so that UK researchers have access to the very best labs and equipment that they need to keep producing that world-class science. A £10 million uplift to the UK innovation and science seed fund, totalling £50 million, will boost the UK’s next technology and science start-ups, which could be the next Apple, Google or Tesla.
We have outlined plans to set up an Exascale supercomputer facility—the most powerful compute capability, which could solve problems as complex as nuclear fusion, as well as a programme to provide dedicated compute capacity for important AI research, as part of our initial response to the future of compute review, which was also published yesterday. Some £9 million in Government funding will support the establishment of a quantum computing research centre in Daresbury in the north-west.
On next steps, each of the 10 framework strands has a lead Department tasked with putting in place a clear action plan, to which they will be accountable during the year. Delivery against those plans will be overseen by the National Science and Technology Council, which will hold Departments to account and drive pace. Alongside the development of those ambitious plans and the framework, we have also set out our initial work under each of the 10 priorities, which will include our skills and talent base.
On priority technologies, we will develop a pro-innovation approach to regulating AI, which will be detailed in our White Paper in the coming weeks. On R&D investment, we will respond to the Tickell review of research bureaucracy, and Sir Paul Nurse’s review of the research, development and innovation landscape. We will work with industry and partners to increase inward investment by the summer recess. On financing innovative science and technology companies, we will build on the strong track record of the British Business Bank to strengthen support for the UK’s science and technology companies.
This ambitious plan will focus on getting actions out the door now, as well as a plan for the future. This Government are both reactive and, crucially, proactive when it comes to science and technology, to ensure that we can be a superpower by 2030.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to her place, and I thank her for the advance notice of her statement.
I welcome the framework. It will take pride of place on my virtual bookshelf next to the Government’s innovation strategy, the R&D road map, the science plan, numerous grand challenges, industrial strategies, sector deals and two UKRI reorganisations. We have seen nine changes of Science Minister in five years. Britain is a world-leading science nation, and we deserve a framework with a longer shelf life than a lettuce, especially given the shortage of salad items under this Government.
It is good to see the Government setting out the principles for identifying the scientific capabilities that we need to protect and grow, and the outcomes that we wish to see from science, as well as seeking to increase STEM skills in teaching and support for start-ups and spin-outs. On the eve of International Women’s Day, and as a chartered engineer, I enthusiastically welcome the ambition to diversify the science and technology workforce. Let us work together to make that ambition a reality.
I have a number of questions for the Secretary of State. How do the five critical technologies in the framework relate to the 17 sensitive areas in the National Security and Investment Act 2021, and the five key growth industries in the autumn statement? When will each critical technology have the appropriate regulatory framework that she talked about? Science-driven industries critical to our future prosperity, such as space, autonomous vehicles, batteries and steel, are not even mentioned. Labour has committed to an industrial strategy council on a statutory footing. Do Government have an industrial strategy?
The framework rightly says that procurement is key to innovation. Why, then, have the Government objected to our amendments to the Procurement Bill to ensure that procurement is not captured by cronyism? The Government committed to £22 billion of science funding by 2027. Will the Secretary of State say what the current funding commitment is now? How much of the £370 million mentioned in the framework is truly new? If it is new, how is she paying for it? The Government promised that science spend will double, but the framework talks of raising science spend outside the greater south-east by only 40%. That suggests that our regional centres of innovation will not benefit from this increased funding. Is that all she has to say about the importance of regional innovation? What of the clusters that the Science Minister talks up so much?
Start-ups and scale-ups are key to sustainable green growth, but the £10 million uplift to the seed fund mentioned here would not meet the early-stage funding requirements of one future Google. Will the Government adopt the recommendations of Labour’s start-up and scale-up review to drive innovative growth across our country?
The biggest question is what is not in the framework—Horizon Europe, the world's biggest science programme. Did the Secretary of State really think that she could get through the statement without even mentioning it? Thanks to the Tories, our brightest and best UK scientists are still having to choose between the funding that they desperately need and the country that they love. British research and British business are feeling the chilling impact of not being part of the world’s greatest scientific collaboration. Can the Secretary of State confirm that now that the Windsor framework has been agreed, Horizon association will follow? Specifically, will the Chancellor’s Budget next week include association funding?
Labour believes that innovation and science are critical to building strong and self-sufficient national and regional economies. We see a clear path from investing in scientific research to the jobs that people can raise a family on. With our ambitious national missions, Labour would stoke the innovation engine to drive high-skilled growth, access new and diverse talent pools and catalyse regions that have been left out of science investment. I fear that this framework is another wish list designed to be shelved or scrapped at the earliest convenience of a Government addicted to sticking-plaster policies. Only a Labour Government, with our long-term industrial strategy, will deliver the science sector and the jobs that our country needs.
Michelle Donelan
I thank the hon. Member for her comments, but in reality it is this Government who are here today delivering jobs and a better future for the British public. As I said in my statement, we are focusing not only on actions today, but on a strategic long-term approach to ensure that we are a science and technology superpower by 2030.
The hon. Member said that there are more technologies than the five that we have identified. Of course there are. The ones we have identified are the key strategic ones, but there is a great deal of work that my ministerial team and I are doing. On funding, we are investing £20 billion by 2024-25, as we have said on the record. The £370 million that we announced yesterday is a new spending commitment that we had not previously outlined. On geographical spread across the nation, we have made a strategic commitment to ensure that 55% of the spend is outside the south-east.
The framework that we have set out is just one part of the work that my Department is doing. Let us not forget that it was established just four weeks ago. In one month, we have not only published a comprehensive framework plan, but got on with key actions to drive the agenda forward. This Government mean business. We have worked very hard in the past few weeks to talk collaboratively with industry and with researchers.
I am not going to take the Opposition’s word about what is wrong. Let us have a look at what experts and people on the ground have to say. Professor Sir Ian Boyd, president of the Royal Society of Biology, says:
“Science and technology is already a central plank of modern life. Putting this centre-stage in government strategy is essential and welcome.”
Professor Julia Black, president of the British Academy, says:
“The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology’s announcements reaffirm the Government’s ambition to put the UK at the forefront of global research, development and innovation”.
I could go on all day long, because our announcement has been wholeheartedly welcomed.
The hon. Member asked about Horizon. This is an announcement about our framework—that is what is on the annunciator screen—and not about Horizon, but I will answer her question anyway. We have not changed our position on Horizon. For the past two years, we have tried to associate. It was in the original deal, and we welcome the comments from the EU. Of course, terms would have to be favourable for the UK—we have lost two years—and we would have to ensure value for money for the taxpayer. We cannot wait around for another two years, because we want to put our researchers first. That is why we have done the responsible and right thing and worked up a plan B, which stands ready should we need it, but our position on Horizon has not changed. We look forward to continuing our conversations with the EU.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee on Science and Technology.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to welcome my right hon. Friend and her ministerial team to their positions. It has been some years since a Science Minister stood at the Dispatch Box as a Secretary of State; I hope that she and her team will have a very successful tenure. I warmly welcome the priority that the Government are giving to science and technology at one of the most exciting times for it since the first industrial revolution. My Committee looks forward to welcoming her to discuss her work and the framework.
I have a few specific questions. First, can my right hon. Friend commit that the £1.65 billion from the science budget that was returned to the Treasury last week as part of the supplementary estimates will go back to the science budget and has not been lost? Secondly, I am interested in what she says about Horizon. Will she say when the negotiations will begin? She rightly says that they cannot go on forever, but how long will she allow them to continue before plan B is enacted? Finally, what mechanisms are in place to ensure that in areas such as battery technology, which is a responsibility of her Department, of the Department for Business and Trade and of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, there is a united and coherent approach across Government so that investors know what the policy is and who to deal with?
Michelle Donelan
My ministerial team and I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend’s Committee. It was good to speak to him yesterday. As I said then, funding remains available to finalise association with EU programmes. In the event that we do not associate, UK researchers and businesses will receive at least as much as they would have through Horizon over the spending review period.
The Government have stepped in to continue to support the UK’s world-leading R&D sector. We have extended the Horizon guarantee until the end of June 2023, as we announced yesterday. The Government have provided £882 million to date via UKRI through the guarantee and they will still deliver their commitment to invest £20 billion per annum in research and development by 2024-25. That is not impacted by the £1.6 billion to which my right hon. Friend refers.
On Horizon, as I said to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), we have not changed our position. We continue to try to associate with Horizon, and we look forward to engaging in more deep and meaningful conversations with the EU on what is possible as we work out the potential options. I will keep my right hon. Friend and this House as informed as possible as plans develop.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I welcome the creation of the new Department and welcome the Secretary of State to her position. I thank her for advance sight of her statement.
The framework should be seen very much as a starting point. I have to say that the Secretary of State’s comments on Horizon will not give the sector much assurance at the moment. That view is echoed by the Royal Society, which says:
“The extension of the funding underwrite announced today is a welcome intervention”
as a safety net,
“but it is yet another sticking plaster, when the ultimate goal needs to be speedy association”.
Sir Paul Nurse’s review also describes Horizon Europe association as essential, so we need a timeframe for when a decision on Horizon will be taken. We have been hearing from the Government for three years that their intention and hope is that there will be such an association, but we need a timeframe.
Dr Tim Bradshaw of the Russell Group has said that the £370 million of new funding falls far short of the £1.6 billion that had been earmarked for research collaborations with the European Union, so it would be useful to know how the Government can continue promoting science in the UK when they are driving down funding in comparison with what was provided before Brexit.
The framework commits to establishing
“competitive advantage in attracting international talent to the UK”,
but Royal Society analysis has shown that work and study visa fees are up to six times higher than in comparable science nations. What plans do the Government have to reduce visa fees in line with other science nations?
The Secretary of State has chosen future communications as an area of focus. In 2020, a $500 million stake was invested in OneWeb to support such communications. Can the Secretary of State update the House on the progress of the OneWeb investment in terms of future communications?
Finally, we have been asking about the semiconductor strategy for many months now. When is it likely to be published?
Michelle Donelan
On Horizon, the hon. Member seems to be rewriting history, which is slightly disappointing. We have tried for two years to associate. It was the EU, not this Government, that linked the issue with the Northern Ireland protocol. We now stand ready to continue those conversations. The £1.6 billion was earmarked for Horizon. We were not able to affiliate and associate with Horizon, which is why the money is no longer available, but we stand committed in terms of our record investment of £20 billion, which we have pledged for 2024-25.
On the conversation around attracting talent, we think it is very important that we are supporting industry and the opportunities available, so there are jobs in this country for people to come to and so they will want to forge a life here.
The semiconductor strategy will be out imminently. We have been doing a great deal of work to ensure that it comes out in exactly the right place.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
The Secretary of State will know that there are acute shortages of teachers in STEM subjects. She may well also know that we on the Science and Technology Committee looked into the lack of diversity in the STEM workforce, but there are only limited references to that in the framework. Yesterday, the Minister for Women, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), set out plans to increase the number of women working in STEM. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he wants to see all children studying maths until the age of 18, and I know that the Education Secretary is passionate about STEM subjects at school. However, it is not entirely clear where the Secretary of State’s Department sits in all this. Will she clarify the position? Which is the lead Department when it comes to ensuring that we improve STEM uptake and, indeed, diversification in both schools and workforces?
Michelle Donelan
On the way the framework will operate, in many of the areas, there will be a lead Department, but we will be working to hold the Departments to account, while also collaborating with them. The Department for Education will lead on the education and skills element, but we will of course work closely with it, because we have a vested interest in ensuring that the framework delivers and we can meet that goal of a science and technology superpower by 2030. However, I want to reassure my hon. Friend that the examples given in the framework are intended to provide a flavour of what every Department will be doing; they are not an exhaustive list. Departments will be coming up with more policies and ideas over the coming years, but they will all have to be linked with the framework, because this is a Government who will be strategic and relentlessly focused.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says that her ambition is to send the message around the world that the UK is a leader in science and technology, and I share that ambition, but, sadly, the Sir Paul Nurse review of research and development—published today—says that funding provided by the Government is limited, and below that of other competitive nations. In fact, the UK is 27th out of 36 OECD nations when it comes to Government funding of R&D. If the Secretary of State is serious about this ambition, as I truly hope she is—and it would be helpful if she listened to what I am saying—will she commit today to assuring the House that, by next year, the UK will be No. 1 among all the OECD nations in respect of Government funding of R&D?
Michelle Donelan
What I can do is reaffirm the commitment that by 2024-25 we will have a record level of R&D spending in this country: £20 billion. Rather than simply standing here announcing endless pots of money, we are being strategic in our spending, and working with the sector when we come up with our policies and plans.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
I welcome the statement and wholeheartedly support it, but may I remind the House that science is a global endeavour? If we are to deliver on the ambitions set out in the framework, we will need to work with our partners. May I ask my right hon. Friend to look at the visa system in particular to ensure that it does not act as a barrier to attracting world-leading scientists and technicians to the UK to help us to deliver on those ambitions?
Michelle Donelan
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Part of the framework is about our international collaboration with partners. Of course we need to grow our own talent, a point made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), but we also need to attract talent, and to ensure that our visa system—as well as many other factors—enables that to happen. I will continue to work on that issue across Government.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Horizon is about collaboration, not just money. May I urge the Secretary of State to impress that on the Prime Minister? She will also be aware that confidence in the life sciences sector is fragile at present, whether it be in relation to R&D tax credits, the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access, or Horizon, and that we have fallen from fourth to 10th among the best countries in which to conduct late-place clinical trials. What is she going to do about that?
Michelle Donelan
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), has taken the lead on that, and we are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are challenges that we need to address, and over the coming weeks and months he will see that this is a Government taking action.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
How will the Government respond to America’s Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which offers such a wide range of tax breaks, favourable Government contracts and favourable regulation to onshore much more science and technology, and threatens to divert investment from the UK?
Michelle Donelan
It is, of course, important for us to create a favourable economic climate for business to prosper. As for regulation, it will be at the heart of our work. We have already commissioned Sir Patrick Vallance to publish a report on the regulation of emerging technology, which will be published imminently, and we will be doing “deep dives” into how we can get the regulatory framework right in order to support innovation, technology and science that is based in the UK.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State and her team. I hope she will join me in celebrating the achievements of Oxfordshire’s researchers, not just at the universities but in the great science parks: they are, I am sure, four square behind her visions. One of the big issues that they raise with me is the “attracting talent” strand, so I am glad she has raised that subject. Horizon Europe is a big part of it, but it was not just the money but the ecosystem that was important to those researchers. However, will the Secretary of State look again at the visa system, and specifically at the costs? Analysis from the Royal Society shows that the cost of obtaining a visa for researchers to come to our country is about six times higher than the cost among our competitors. Will the Secretary of State speak to the Home Office about that?
Michelle Donelan
What we really want to do is provide the research community with complete clarity and the certainty that they have not been able to have for the last two years while we have waited around trying to associate with Horizon. As I said at the outset, we want that process to be relatively swift. As for the question of visas, of course we want to attract the brightest and the best. Part of yesterday’s announcement was about how we are going not just to wait for people to want to come here, but to be proactive and to utilise our global talent network to go out and find them and to persuade them of the value of locating and working in the UK.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour to her position. Does she agree that one area of outstanding science in the United Kingdom is in the Arctic and the Antarctic? Our polar scientific research is superb, thanks to the National Environment Research Council, the British Antarctic Survey and the 78 universities with first-class polar research departments. I have not had a chance to read her framework paper, but what more can the Government do within the framework to encourage polar research, which is so superb in this country but needs more co-ordination and, of course, always needs more encouragement from the Government?
Michelle Donelan
I commend my hon. Friend for all the great work that he does and has done consistently over the years. I know that he held a meeting here to dive deep into this issue again and to raise its profile. Of course the work is important geopolitically, but it is also important to addressing net zero. We work closely with partners. Our approach is global, not just internal, which is key to the framework.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I should declare an interest, in that I have a long-standing experience and love of the higher education system. I also co-chair the Higher Education Commission with Lord Norton.
I like a lot of the stuff that the Secretary of State has said today, particularly what she has said about having a much more focused Department, but I should warn her that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) is right: morale is low in the higher education sector and we need to put that right. We also need the resources of good management in universities. We must make them open to dialogue and partnership with local businesses, small businesses and big businesses. I ask the Secretary of State please to look closely at that innovation and enterprise.
Michelle Donelan
This is at the heart of the Nurse review, which talks of the diversification of the research sector and how we can open up the opportunities that the hon. Gentleman has described. As a former higher education Minister, I know only too well the challenges that universities can face in this regard. My policy is always an open-door policy, and I work closely and in collaboration with the universities to break down some of those barriers and create those opportunities.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement The third element of her framework plan was growing private and public investment to boost productivity. Does she agree that what is crucial is not just the development of new ideas but their implementation, because that is how productivity will be boosted? Will she ensure that there is a focus throughout Government on implementation and scale-ups, given that all Departments can play a role in the delivery of progress?
Michelle Donelan
My hon. Friend is right. It is not just about the funding; it is also about the implementation, the focus and a strategic approach, which is why this Government want to lead from the front. We need to focus not just on start-ups but on scale-ups, which is one of the things that has held us back in the UK, especially in the tech sector. My Department will play a critical role in supporting the industry to tackle this.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
York has already framed its future economy, whether through Buy Yorkshire, with 4,000 more jobs for our city and region, through digital and advanced rail, which is currently providing 5,500 jobs and has the ability to grow, or through the emerging digital creative sector, which is an exciting innovation across York. However, the Government have been slow in giving that support and getting the money out of the door. We are frustrated because we want to press ahead, so how will the Secretary of State deliver for our city?
Michelle Donelan
I pledge to meet the hon. Member and listen carefully to the challenges that she has experienced, so that we can address them not just in her area but in other areas.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
I welcome the joining together of these strands of Government, not least because of the broadband programme, and my right hon. Friend truly has the opportunity to be the Secretary of State for growth. That is hugely important. Does she agree that it is the UK’s leading role in the regulatory space that allows us potentially to be a world leader in the regulation of areas such as artificial intelligence, where there is not only a vital national security angle but a vital economic opportunity that we can seize at this unique moment in that technology’s history?
Michelle Donelan
Exactly. As my hon. Friend points out, this is about regulation to create innovation, and we need to get those regulatory frameworks right. We also need to look at the behaviour of the regulators themselves, at how they interact with one another and at the burden they place on researchers and businesses alike.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Small and medium-sized tech companies provide a vital engine of growth in our economy, particularly in the Thames valley and in towns such as Reading. Can she say more about what her Department is doing to support these vital small and medium-sized businesses?
Michelle Donelan
Indeed. When we talk about our science and technology agenda, this is not just to support big tech; it is to support all businesses, including those small and medium-sized ones, which we hope to be able to support to scale up and continue to grow and create jobs. At the heart of our plans, the hon. Gentleman will see how we can support them in a range of different ways through the 10-point plan and by being strategic across Government, from our approach on skills to our approach on regulation. And let us not forget that this Department is coming forward with a number of pieces of legislation, including the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, which will help to support businesses to get rid of some of that unnecessary burden, and the digital markets Bill, which is focused on freeing up some of those small businesses and unlocking opportunities for growth.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I welcome the framework and also my right hon. Friend’s commitment that the Government will soon be publishing the national semiconductor strategy. Does she agree that this is a fantastic opportunity to highlight not just the leading role in the world that British companies play in semiconductor design, but the attractiveness of the UK for investment in advanced manufacturing, particularly in compound semiconductors?
Michelle Donelan
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Our work in semiconductors is important not just for national security but for economic security, and we have some key strengths when it comes to research and development for semiconductors, and our compound semiconductor manufacturing sector. We will continue to support semiconductors and come forward with that strategy in the coming days or weeks.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Research projects at Welsh universities face an immediate cliff edge with the end of European funds, which will run out at the end of the month, endangering 60 projects and 1,000 jobs. This affects the whole of the UK, but there is a specific issue in Wales due to the concentration of European funding there over the years. Can I therefore use this statement to ask the Secretary of State whether she will discuss with the Treasury the need to announce bridge funding in the Budget next week to protect these projects while the replacement funding is settled?
Michelle Donelan
I am aware of this issue, as is my ministerial team, and we pledge to meet the hon. Member to discuss this in detail in the coming weeks.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
The Secretary of State knows that we are technologically and scientifically ready for the small and medium reactors that we need to roll out across the United Kingdom. They are world beaters. Will the Secretary of State include this in all the principles that she is putting forward today, because it is absolutely vital? We need the energy and we also need to sell these reactors, because they are superb.
Michelle Donelan
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. This highlights how the Department will be working hand in hand with other Departments. On this agenda, we will be working closely with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. It is our Department that will be focusing on innovation and the technologies of tomorrow, but it is incumbent on us to work with the other Departments to deliver them in time to be ready for tomorrow.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The issue with Horizon is that UK-based researchers were able to take more from the scheme than the UK Government contributed to it. The Times reports today that the Prime Minister is said to be sceptical about Horizon:
“He thinks it’s a very expensive way to fund a lot of small academic collaborations which don’t really change the world.”
Does the Secretary of State recognise that science is an international endeavour, that incremental developments in science do change the world and that the UK would be a net beneficiary of Horizon if only we could associate?
Michelle Donelan
The entire point of our announcement yesterday was that we believe that science and technology can change the world. We also believe that they can change people’s lives here in the UK, and that is why we made our announcement on the actions we are taking now and on the long-term framework, so that we can be proactive as well as reactive. As I have said on Horizon, our position has not changed.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
As somebody with a maths degree, I am naturally very supportive and enthusiastic about a Government Department dedicated to science, and I very much welcome the new framework to proactively position the UK as the science superpower. I can confirm that my constituency, where almost every village has a science park, will do more than almost any other constituency to try to turn that vision into a reality. We already have a thriving herd of unicorns, a vibrant community of Nobel prize winners and laboratories everywhere stacked full of researchers, a lot of whom were funded by the Horizon programme. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement that the Government want to reopen negotiations on Horizon and that they are open to that. I accept that she cannot commit to the outcome of negotiations while they are going on, and it is good that she has a plan B in her back pocket, but negotiations create uncertainty and I wonder what reassurance she can give to my formerly Horizon-funded researchers that they will not lose their funding until we get a long-term solution.
Michelle Donelan
I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to provide researchers and academics with that clarity and certainty. That is exactly why we yesterday extended the guarantee by another three months so that they can be confident, as we have talks with the EU, that there is a system in place.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s creation of this Department and warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to her position as Secretary of State. I also welcome the £370 million that is being invested. In drawing up this framework, what lessons have been learned from the covid-19 pandemic and, in particular, from the success of the vaccines taskforce under Kate Bingham, whose position was, I remind the House, shamefully undermined by the Opposition?
Michelle Donelan
We have taken a great deal of learnings from the operation of the vaccines taskforce, and we have been deploying those learnings, as we can see from the life sciences missions that we have put into process. One of the key learnings relates to the work we do with industry, and also our ability to work much more quickly and to cut through red tape and regulation. My hon. Friend will see from my Department a relentless focus on cutting down that regulation, getting the regulatory framework right and cutting away some of the unnecessary bureaucracy that is holding back our nation from excelling even more.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s new science and technology framework, but will my right hon. Friend set out how the life science vision works within it and also speak of the amazing and rewarding jobs that will come with it?
Michelle Donelan
The framework that we set up yesterday is the strategic overarching plan for how we get to be a science and technology superpower. Of course, we are working on many other strands to ensure that we can drive forward those policies to achieve those goals, including the life science vision.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
You have had some good exercise, Mr Fell.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—last but not least.
I warmly welcome this statement, and I welcome the Secretary of State and her fantastic team to the Front Bench. This statement is great news for science, and the £370 million deposit towards turning the UK into a science superpower is welcome. My constituents will be glad to hear it, as we are trying to get the Ulverston life sciences cluster off the ground. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and the GSK taskforce to see how it can best engage with the strategy and take it forward?
Michelle Donelan
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss what is happening in his constituency. I think it will improve his constituents’ lives with more jobs and better paid jobs, but it will also improve the lives of all our constituents. This is how we drive forward our economy, how we grow our economy, how we create better paid jobs, how we improve our healthcare and how we tackle climate change. My constituents are asking me for all those things, and it is this Government who are delivering this proactive, outcomes-based approach.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for responding to questions for more than three quarters of an hour.
Bills Presented
Illegal Migration Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Suella Braverman, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Dominic Raab, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary James Cleverly, Secretary Gillian Keegan and Robert Jenrick, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the removal from the United Kingdom of persons who have entered or arrived in breach of immigration control; to make provision about detention for immigration purposes; to make provision about unaccompanied children; to make provision about victims of slavery or human trafficking; to make provision about leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom; to make provision about citizenship; to make provision about the inadmissibility of certain protection and certain human rights claims relating to immigration; to make provision about the maximum number of persons entering the United Kingdom annually using safe and legal routes; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 262) with explanatory notes (Bill 262-EN).
Online Abuse (Reporting) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Christine Jardine, supported by Wera Hobhouse, Munira Wilson, Helen Morgan, Sarah Olney and Richard Foord, presented a Bill to require social media companies to publish reports setting out the action they have taken to address online abuse against women and girls, and other groups of people who share a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 263).
Pension Contributions
Tuesday 7th March 2023
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Pension Contributions Bill 2022-23 View all Pension Contributions 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
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require employers to pay pension contributions into a pension scheme of the employee’s choosing; and for connected purposes.
This is the moment that the House has been waiting for all day. I have a problem, and I am not the only one with this problem. In fact, many millions of people have this problem too. The value of the problem is huge—at least £37 billion—and its scale is matched only by the level of public ennui. Yes, I am talking pensions, and not any old pensions but lost and deferred pension pots.
The occupational pension system in this country was designed for a time when most people had a job for life, but gone are the days of retiring after 40 years of service at one company, leaving with a gold watch and a gold-plated pension. It is now the norm to hop between jobs. The average person will now have 11 employers over their lifetime. I am in my 50s, and I now have nine different pensions.
Millions of people have been building up multiple pension pots, one for each job. This has been massively accelerated by the Government’s highly successful introduction of auto-enrolment in 2012, which brought pension saving to new groups that had previously been absent from the system, including low earners. Participation in workplace pension saving among eligible employees increased from 55% in 2012 to 88% in 2021, which is a welcome development, but the result is an explosion in the number of people with multiple deferred pension pots. Sometimes the pots are quite large and sometimes very small, containing just a few hundred pounds or even less.
The Pensions Policy Institute estimates that there were 8 million deferred pension pots in 2020, and I have seen other estimates of up to 11 million. Unless something is done, the PPI estimates that the number will rise to 27 million by 2035. Data from the Association of British Insurers suggests there are 2.2 million deferred pots containing less than £1,000. These pots are difficult to manage and easy to lose. The PPI estimates that the value of lost pension pots has grown from £19.4 billion in 2018 to £26.6 billion last year.
This makes it hard for people to track their total pension savings and, therefore, to plan properly for retirement. Charges for these small pots can erode their value to literally nothing, leading to greater poverty in old age. Managing these small pots can be loss-making for pension companies. It is a lose-lose situation for pension members and pension providers and, overall, it erodes public support for pension saving.
The Government recognise the problem and have taken various steps over the years. They made it possible for pension holders to consolidate pension pots, which is welcome, but it can be fearsomely difficult because of the overwhelming bureaucracy. Later this year, the Government are launching a pensions dashboard. Again, this is welcome, and it will give people a single view of all their pension pots in one place. It will make it easier for people to see how much they have in savings, and for them to manage those savings. It might even reunite some people with their lost pensions pots. Those are both good initiatives, but neither tackles the problem of multiple pots being created in the first place.
The Government are now looking at further measures to tackle the multiple pot problem. A small pots working group was launched in 2020, and the Government launched a consultation on the issue at the end of January 2023. As the name implies, the working group’s focus is on small pots. Although there is no set definition, a small pot generally contains less than £1,000 and has been inactive for over a year. Small pots are a particular issue for pension providers because there are so many of them and because they lose money, but there is also the issue of multiple larger pots.
The solution chosen by the Government will shape the pension landscape for a generation, so it should benefit both pension members and pension providers. The Government need to make sure that we do not end up with a solution that works well for the pension industry but less well for pensioners.
The consultation launched in January by the Department for Work and Pensions seeks evidence on three proposed solutions to the multiple pots problem, as the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), is well aware: first, a default consolidator; secondly, a system in which the pot moves with a pension member to a new employer’s scheme; and thirdly, a member exchange. All three solutions have merits, but another policy, which is not being actively considered at the moment, has been adopted by many other countries—the so-called pot for life.
The objective of a pot for life, sometimes known as the lifetime provider model, is that workers have a single pension pot that they can easily manage and know the extent of their savings. Their own pension contributions, and those of their employer, are paid into that pot. Members can remain with the same provider for their whole working life, even when they switch job. They can change provider if they want, but it is their choice. On starting a new job, the employee gives their bank account details so that their salary can be paid, and their pension details so that their pension contributions can be paid. It is a solution that puts engaged pension members, rather than their employer or pension provider, at the centre of the system.
The pot for life is different from the “pot follows member” solution, in which the employer chooses the pension provider, such as their corporate scheme, into which the existing pension pot of new employees is transferred. In the “pot follows member” regime, someone who has 10 jobs over their lifetime will have their pension transferred between 10 providers. This can be expensive and confusing. A person with two part-time jobs will end up with two different pensions, through their two different employers, at the same time.
All this is solved by the single lifetime provider, or single pot, model. Countries from Australia to New Zealand, from Chile to Mexico, have adopted the model. This is clearly a big change from where we are now, and I am not suggesting that we should suddenly go to an automatic lifetime provider for all, which would be impossible practically, but there are many different ways of setting up the lifetime provider model.
What I am proposing is a small legislative change that gives employees the right to opt out of their company pension scheme without losing pension contributions. A new employee would be given the right to direct their own and their employer’s contributions to a provider of their choice, perhaps to an existing fund or to a new one. When they change job, they could make sure their new employer’s contributions go into their own pension pot. The employer’s contributions would be required to be of the same value as the contributions it makes to its existing company scheme, to make sure that employees who opt out are not penalised.
One concern that has been raised is that the proposed model would increase employers’ administrative costs, particularly for small businesses, as they would have to pay contributions to multiple schemes, but I think that argument is overegged. Pretty much all companies now have automatic payroll systems or a payroll service provider that can pay salaries into different bank accounts and pension contributions into different pension funds.
There are concerns about the impact on existing company pensions, but that can be easily mitigated. It is an opt-out system, so the change can be gradual and the effect on existing schemes incremental. After a long time, when the scheme has bedded in, a future Government might decide to make it automatic, as has happened in Australia. The industry may want to set up a platform to process all the different payments.
My proposal is a supplement to, rather than a replacement for, the different proposals that the Government are currently considering. My proposal will not deal with the existing stock of millions of deferred pension pots, which the consolidator model would help to address, and it could exist alongside the “pot follows member” regime. Employees would be given a choice of solutions. If the overall solution is better in the long term for pension members, we should pursue it.
Some in the industry might need educating on the wisdom of this solution, but many in the industry are already supportive. As I came into this place, I received an email from Hargreaves Lansdown, whose permission I have to quote it. It said:
“This is an approach which Hargreaves Lansdown has supported for many years. We believe that it is a vital part of the puzzle to drive up engagement with pensions, especially with so many saving in DC pots.”
Other countries have gone down this route and have had a positive experience. Australia and New Zealand have seen reduced transfer costs in the industry, as pension members do not have multiple pots that need to be consolidated. It has also helped to reduce member charges, as they do not have multiple pots all accruing their own separate charges. Of course, there are economic, technical and cultural differences between the UK and these countries, but that does not take away from the general principle.
Ultimately, it is my belief that pension savers should be at the heart of our pension system and that the north star of our pension policy should be a pot for life. That means that people know exactly what they have in their pension pot, helping them to make informed decisions about their level of contribution and to plan for their retirement based on this knowledge. Such an approach would help to restore trust in our great pensions system. A solution to multiple pension pots should help engaged pension members while protecting the less well engaged. It should not be skewed by only addressing the providers’ concerns with small pension pots. That is why I want to legislate to require employers to pay into a pension scheme of the employee’s choosing. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Anthony Browne, Damian Green, Richard Fuller, Gareth Bacon, Mr Jonathan Djanogly, Mrs Flick Drummond, Mrs Pauline Latham, Alexander Stafford, Andrew Selous, Selaine Saxby, Douglas Chapman and Wendy Chamberlain present the Bill.
Anthony Browne accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March, and to be printed (Bill 264)
Public Order Bill (Programme) (No.3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Public Order Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 23 May 2022 (Public Order Bill: Programme), as varied by the Order of 18 October 2022 (Public Order Bill: Programme (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 5, 6 to 9, 36, 1, 17, 20, 21, 23, 27, 28, 31 to 33, 2 to 4, 10 to 16, 18, 19, 22, 24 to 26, 29, 30, 34, 35 and 37.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Julie Marson.)
Question agreed to.
Public Order Bill
Tuesday 7th March 2023
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Order Act 2023 View all Public Order Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 7 March 2023 - (7 Mar 2023)
18:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 116 / Noes: 299 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 281 / Noes: 236 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 286 / Noes: 235 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:55 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 285 / Noes: 231 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:08 - The House divided: - Ayes: 280 / Noes: 232 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I inform the House that I have selected amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment 5.
Clause 9
Offence of interference with access to or provision of abortion services
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 5, and amendment (b) thereto.
Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 7, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 9, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 36, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 1, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendment 17, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendments 20, 21, 23, 27, 28 and 31 to 33, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendments 2 to 4, 10 to 16, 18, 19, 22, 24 to 26, 29, 30, 34, 35 and 37.
Andrew Lewer
I have tabled my amendment because the Bill, in its current form, has a problem. The part of the Bill it deals with is leading us into the territory of thought crimes and creates unprecedented interference with the rights to freedom of speech and thought in the UK.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
If my hon. Friend were to go on Twitter now, he would find a recording of an arresting officer telling a lady that praying silently is already a crime, and we have not even passed this Bill yet. Are we not really in Orwellian territory of thought crime, as he said?
Andrew Lewer
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend, and that is the concern. The part of the Bill I am referring to is Lords amendment 5; put forward in the House of Lords by Baroness Sugg on the matter of “interference” within buffer zones.
I understand that many people will find it highly inappropriate for vocal or difficult protests to be held right outside abortion clinics, and I categorically condemn harassment against women at all points in their life, let alone near an abortion facility. However, that is a world away from the police being able to detain people and question them over what they are doing if they are merely standing there or praying quietly—or worse, if they are praying silently and are then asked by the police, agents of the state, “What are you thinking about?”
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for tabling this amendment. Does he agree that the Government could do one thing today: they could indicate clearly that this measure does not apply to people engaged in prayer? Secondly, does he agree that if the Government allow this situation to continue, they are going to turn the police into a laughing stock? People will be mocking them, saying, “What about all the knife crime and all the other problems that you have? And you are arresting people for silently praying.” This provision really does make a fool of the police, does it not?
Andrew Lewer
It does cause reputational damage to the police; the videos that some colleagues have seen are hugely disturbing. It makes it difficult for Ministers to stand up and say, “The police are on your side, they will defend you”, when people see a woman who is on her own and standing perfectly still being harassed by the police. I agree entirely with the comments that the hon. Gentleman has made.
So, “What are you thinking?” is covered by the Bill in its current state and remains there despite the Sugg amendment. Action such as I was describing is entirely unacceptable in a free and open society, and I could have my pick of dystopian novels—one has already been referenced—from which it would not be out of place.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
No one, in any part of the House, wants women or anyone else to be harassed while going about their lawful business. However, does my hon. Friend acknowledge that legislation is already in place whereby local councils can apply buffer zones around abortion clinics and other such areas when it is necessary to do so? Three or four local authorities have already introduced buffer zones, so this extra amendment is not necessary, because local authorities already have the powers.
Andrew Lewer
Indeed. The Lords amendment extends something that is already disturbing, as we see in some of the video instances that have taken place. These zones would be the only place in the UK where consensual communication is banned by the state—simply saying that sentence makes this seem such an absurdity. To those who say this would never happen, I say that it has indeed already happened. In December, in Birmingham, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was searched, arrested, interrogated and placed on criminal trial for silently praying within one of these zones, and she has now been arrested again.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
There is an important detail missing from what my hon. Friend just said, as I understand that when Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was arrested the clinic was not even open. It just seems that if we continue down this line, we are going to extrapolate on an extrapolation in order to make absolutely sure that anybody can be arrested for anything.
Andrew Lewer
That is exactly right, and I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. Indeed, the question asked then was, “Are you praying?” When that was answered with, “I might be”, the next question was, “What are you praying about?” That was answered with, “I am praying in my head.” It is extraordinary that that leads to someone being arrested in this country in 2023.
Last month, a father and Army veteran was fined in Bournemouth after being grilled by the police about what he was silently praying in his head. This points the way to a world where freedom from offence, or even potential offence, supersedes freedom of speech and religious belief. We have created, therefore, a situation where we can impose criminal penalties for silent thought, and there will be countless ramifications. For example, it would make it increasingly difficult for my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, to advocate for these freedoms abroad. We often have debates in this House where we are all telling the rest of the world what to do and people will turn around and say, “How can you lecture us about religious freedom when there are areas where you cannot even pray in your own country without being arrested and hauled off by the police?”
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My hon. Friend is speaking first in the debate, so I would like to give him an opportunity to anticipate an argument, with which I have considerable sympathy, that we are going to hear urged against him. I refer to the fact that we have seen in other countries, particularly the United States, loud and noisy protests outside abortion clinics and they are what has undoubtedly led to this movement for zones. Will he confirm that if his amendment goes through, it will not, in any way, affect the ability of the law to prevent women from being genuinely harassed when they go to abortion clinics?
Andrew Lewer
That is an extremely important part of this amendment—it makes sure that those protections are very much still in place, as indeed they already are under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Censorship is a notoriously slippery slope. It might not be our thoughts that are being criminalised today, but we should be careful not to open the door to that happening tomorrow to other opinions that people might hold about something else.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Which is precisely why successive Prime Ministers and Health Secretaries, including the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, took the view that there was no need for further action, Indeed, they did not see this as a matter for a free vote, which abortion, as a generality, rightly is. This is about freedom: it is not about the purpose of that freedom or the location of it. It is about the ability to think, speak and pray freely.
Andrew Lewer
It is, and that is an important point. This is not a debate about opinions on abortion. Opinions about abortion are varied and differ hugely throughout the House. The 2022 Act already gives the police the power to
“place any condition on a public assembly (that is necessary to prevent disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation)”.
That is far more targeted and proportionate. If Members do not feel those powers are sufficient, that is a conversation about altering public space protection orders, not imposing nationwide buffer zones.
Those who do not accept amendment (a) must be able to justify to both themselves and the public why they do not believe that private prayer is a fundamental human right in the United Kingdom. The Bill must absolutely not outlaw our fundamental human rights and I remain far from convinced that, unamended, it will not.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
May I first seek your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker? May I speak to the other amendments on the order paper?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Please speak only to the amendments that are before us today.
Jon Trickett
Thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker: I just wanted to be clear.
I have some sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), although clearly the ability of people to go about their lawful business at work, including clinicians, administrative assistants and women going to have procedures, must be protected. I am not convinced that his amendment (a) would achieve an absence of harassment, so I will not support it and the House should not do so either.
I have some sympathy with the points the hon. Gentleman made, however, because the whole Bill is an assault on British liberty. That is the central point, and I will illustrate it in several ways later in my speech. This is an extraordinary Bill. It will hand unprecedented, draconian powers to the repressive arms of the British state, but we have been given only three hours to discuss it. The debate on protecting people going for abortions could take three hours in itself, but we are faced with a series of amendments that were debated in the Lords over days. We have been given three hours, and that is outrageous. Why have the Government provided so little time to discuss these matters, some of which go back a thousand years in English history?
Lords amendment 6 deals with stop and search without suspicion. The police will be granted the power to intercept people who are not even suspected of committing a crime. That is an extraordinary power after more than 1,000 years of the struggle by the British people for a state that protects our liberty. Several of those who spoke in the debate in the other place said that the only comparison they could think of was in the laws that were passed against terrorism. Protesting about injustice is not terrorism, and to conflate the two is a mistake. I have not heard the Government make the case for that, and I will be interested to hear what they have to say. The police have said that they do not want these powers, and previous members of the judiciary in the Lords said that they were concerned about how the Bill could be interpreted.
The Bill as it stands will lead to a further breakdown in confidence between the police and other parts of the state on the one hand, and communities on the other. One example is the Sarah Everard case, where police moved in to prevent what was effectively peaceful and justified protest. That led to a major breakdown in confidence in the Met, although that was already in process because it was a serving police officer who had committed the crime. The police used the covid rules that were then in place, the appropriateness of which had been debated in the House.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I am sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I support him in his cause this afternoon, but the arrests in the Sarah Everard case were made because, shamefully, this House had banned the right to protest.
Jon Trickett
That is the point I was just making, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for repeating it.
The police used the covid rules, which had been passed by the House, possibly regrettably. But under this Bill, the police will need no excuse whatever, because the law will allow them to arrest people even if there is no suspicion of any kind. It is quite extraordinary to see a clause in a Bill brought before this British House of Commons proposing that people can be intercepted by the police on no suspicion whatsoever.
Ian Paisley
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point. Is it not the case that this Bill removes from the police the right to use something that we expect from them: discretion? It removes the ability to use their discretion and be proportionate. This Bill applies a disproportionate action and forces the police to take that disproportionate action.
Jon Trickett
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. He is right that the British state claimed historically to be the bastion of our liberty, but today it is proposed that it become an engine of our suppression. An authoritarian state is being created here, and it is not acceptable.
When I said earlier that these rights go back centuries, I was not exaggerating. The right to freedom of association—for people to meet with whoever they choose, on the streets or anywhere else—is part of the very structure of our society. The rights of free speech, freedom of association and freedom of assembly were built into our constitution for generations and centuries. They will all be fundamentally disrupted by this piece of legislation.
Habeas corpus, the right of individuals not to be intervened on by the state or its apparatuses without good reason, goes back centuries. Protection against arbitrary imprisonment by the state was incorporated in the Habeas Corpus Act 1679. The Bill of Rights 1689 went through this House of Commons, and now the House of Commons is being asked to surrender at least part of the principle of habeas corpus, and on no suspicion whatsoever. I add that point one more time, because it is extraordinary that that is what is being said.
It may be said, “Well, in the light of what’s happening in the country, with the protest movements and so on, we need new powers.” Just a minute, though—will the Minister in responding perhaps tell us why a breach of the King’s peace, or the Riot Act 1714, or other items of legislation which have gone through this House and have protected our liberties over the centuries, might not be appropriately used? A breach of the peace is an act of common law going back before the year 1000, to King Alfred—that is how deep the attachment to liberty is in our country, yet it is about to be broken.
The Justices of the Peace Act 1361, preventing riotous and barbaric behaviour that disturbs the peace of the King, also went through this Parliament. Why is it suddenly necessary now, after more than 1,000 years of our history, to empower the state to operate in these ways? We have many other Acts; the Riot Act was read on the steps of the town hall, I think, in my home city of Leeds, against the gas workers who were on strike in the 19th century. In Featherstone in my constituency, the Riot Act was read and people were killed. All they were doing was striking to protect their wages and incomes. How can it be that there is no legislation in place that might deal with the kind of actions we can envisage taking place? Why is it that suddenly, in this century, we are about to abandon 1,000 years of our history? I will come to an explanation in a moment.
I have spoken to Lords amendment 6, but I will briefly speak to Lords amendment 1 and the attempt to define what the Government mean by “serious disruption”. The amendment is now being replaced by the Home Secretary, who is proposing amendment (a) in lieu. The amendment in lieu is quite astonishing. It suggests that anybody may be arrested if they have taken action that might, in more than a minor degree, affect work or supply of goods and services. Subsection (2)(b) of the Home Secretary’s amendment in lieu refers to the following activities: the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel, communication, places of worship, transport, education and health. It so happens that those are the areas where there is industrial action—where people are taking action to protect their living standards, a right they have had for more than a century.
Why is the list that has been provided to this House in this amendment proposing those particular areas of action? How can minor disruption to services now be regarded as a criminal offence? This will provoke a breakdown in trust between the police force, the state itself and people taking action. I represent a mining community. I went there just over 27 years ago, and during the strike—[Interruption.] Are you trying to say something, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I was just trying to communicate that at some point we need to be aware that there are quite a few speakers. That is all.
Jon Trickett
I appreciate your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am about to finish on this point.
The definition that the Lords tried to introduce was not perfect but it was far better than the amendment before us. We have a failing political and economic system, and consent has broken down across wide parts of the country. There are two ways of moving forward: either we try to produce a just and more equal society or we move from consent to repression. That is where this Government are taking us, and it is a seriously bad step. This legislation, and certainly the amendments, ought not to go through.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. It will be clear that quite a few hon. and right hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. I would suggest that colleagues keep to about eight minutes to start with. I will not need to put a time limit on if we can think of each other in a comradely fashion—that would be great. I call David Davis.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
May I start by commending the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett)? I agree very much with what he had to say, but I say to him that, although the laws and the constitution underpinning these matters are, as he said, up to 1,000 years old, much of the tradition of modern demonstrations goes back to the 1930s, when the behaviour of the police towards demonstrators led to the creation of the National Council for Civil Liberties, for example. I know that because my grandfather led more than one demonstration and was arrested—after being baton-charged by the police—for inciting violence. He was sent to prison for six months—although the judge gave him the option of being bound over for six months and not making irritating speeches, and he said he would rather go to prison, so there we are.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) made one of the best speeches I have heard in this House for a very long time on something as fundamental as the right to prayer without intercession by the state. That is an issue that is thousands of years old, and he was absolutely right.
This is problematic. What we are debating is the outcome of an over-heavy-handed Bill—that is where it starts. We were all outraged by the behaviour of some of the demonstrators—disrupting ambulances and Lord knows what else—and the Government reacted to that, but they overreacted, frankly. The Lords have corrected that, and the Government have conceded on a number of important points. They have removed the possibility that a serious disruption prevention order—one of the most restrictive measures we have short of imprisonment—can be imposed on people who have never been convicted.
I say to the Minister that five years after a conviction is a very long time. Most non-violent convictions are spent after one year, so five years is a devil of a long time to allow such restrictions to be put on somebody. The Lords have removed the electronic tagging requirement again. The idea that creating nuisance should lead to someone being tagged is, in my view, a barbaric proposal, and it is gone. An explicit provision that the police cannot use their powers against journalists was carried by about 90 votes in the Lords. That should not even have come up; it is so obvious that that is undermining for us.
The SDPOs are still very restrictive for what are relatively simple offences. They involve bans on using the internet in certain ways, bans on being in certain areas, bans on intended protests, and many other restrictions. They resemble control orders, which—remember—are counter-terrorism measures. That is a crude approach. As I said, five years is too long for the criminal offence to be unspent, so I hope that the Government will look at that again, or, if they do not, that the Lords send it back again.
The organisation Liberty, which, as I said, came into being because of these sorts of problems with demonstrations in the ’30s, has raised concerns about the possibility of political interference, which is really serious. The Secretary of State may issue “guidance about identifying persons” to whom the police should apply an SDPO. In that, we in this House will have no say. That is, again, a critical concern.
The most important thing was raised by the hon. Member for Hemsworth: suspicionless stop and search. Stop and search is an abuse of our freedoms, full stop. Being stopped by a policeman and required to strip off, or to empty one’s pockets and bags, is an abuse that we do not allow in this country. Let me be clear: the vast majority of police are responsible, decent and public-spirited people, but the past year has shown that there are also some other people in there. The Sarah Everard offence has been referred to; Couzens was charged with other offences just recently. That demonstrates the danger of handing over unfettered power to people who might abuse it. That is the simple point, and what the state is doing is handing over that power. What we are looking at here—suspicionless stop and search—has to be restricted or eliminated. If we do not do this, we will be in the same position as some states with which we have no sympathy.
Last, I want to reinforce my point with quotations from His Majesty’s inspectorate of police. Inspectors went round 10 police forces asking for their opinions, and right enough, there was a spectrum, but I want to read out a few sentences from their report. They said:
“At one end of the spectrum, an officer we interviewed described the current legislation”—
that is, the existing legislation, not this Bill—
“as providing ‘an arsenal’ of weapons for the police to use, including many appropriate for use in the context of disruptive protests. Consequently, that interviewee”—
a police officer—
“and many others saw no need for change. Arguing against the proposal for a new stop and search power (Home Office proposal 5) another officer stated that ‘a little inconvenience is more acceptable than a police state’.”
That is a policeman speaking. His Majesty’s inspectorate said:
“We agree with this sentiment.”
His Majesty’s inspectorate, with all its knowledge—much greater than that in the civil service and the Home Office—think that the proposal is unnecessary and that to keep it is to veer towards a police state. On that basis alone, I say to the Minister, please think again about getting rid of the amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). Our view remains that, despite the best efforts of the other place, the Bill continues to represent a draconian and utterly unjustified attack on protest rights. It is fair to acknowledge that the Government have given some ground, but it is far from enough, so we will vote against a number of the Government’s motions to disagree.
Let me deal first with no-suspicion stop and search, in clause 11. It is horribly ironic that as part of a Bill which the Home Office claims—unconvincingly—is designed to tackle “dangerous and highly disruptive” tactics, the Home Office itself is turning to one of the most dangerous and highly disruptive police tactics: suspicionless stop and search. It is a tactic that achieves next to nothing, yet causes considerable harm, including shocking racial disparities—a fact which I do not think the Government have properly acknowledged during the course of the Bill’s passage.
The profoundly negative impact of stop and search on individuals and on community faith in the police came across loud and clear to me as a member of the Home Affairs Committee when we heard evidence as part of our “The Macpherson Report: Twenty Years On” inquiry. Nobody with reasonable knowledge of the Macpherson report, numerous subsequent inspection reports, or the Home Affairs Committee report could responsibly think that expanding no-suspicion stop and search is a sensible way to go, or the answer to any of our problems. Our Committee report warned of the dangers of such search powers resulting in injustice and undermining the legitimacy that is fundamental to the model of policing by consent. In doing so, we echoed earlier inspectorate reports and the words of the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who in 2014 spoke about the huge damage done to the relationship between the police and the public when innocent people are stopped and searched for no good reason.
Similarly, when looking at the Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights—we will hear from its Chair, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), shortly—objected to these powers. We fully support the Joint Committee’s conclusions on the inherent risk of arbitrary and discriminatory use, and the point that post-exercise accountability is simply not enough. The Committee rightly highlighted that such powers have been used only for really significant and serious offences, such as terrorism or serious violence. Now, the Government want to use them for non-violent activities that are only just now being made criminal offences. The question is: what comes next? It is a very, very slippery slope and a totally inappropriate use of such powers.
The trigger for the powers is also ridiculously low: it could be the possibility that someone somewhere is seriously annoying or inconveniencing somebody else—the public nuisance offence—or that somebody somewhere could lock on to a fence or a gate in a way that is capable of causing more than minor disruption to two people. Suddenly, the whole neighbourhood can be searched in the name of stopping that serious annoyance or the more than minor disruption for two people. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden quoted the police officer who told His Majesty’s inspectorate that
“a little inconvenience is more acceptable than a police state”.
That is absolutely spot-on. In short, it is a totally ludicrous proposal of dubious consistency with human rights law. It is similarly ludicrous and disproportionate that the penalty will put at risk of imprisonment completely innocent people who simply challenge an officer over an asserted use of a blanket power. That is a dangerous road to go down.
Turning to serious disruption prevention orders, we acknowledge again that the Government have come some way in diluting these highly objectional orders made otherwise than on conviction, but we remain of the view that the whole idea of SDPOs is utterly Kafkaesque and threatens an unjustified infringement on the right to protest of huge numbers of people each and every year. We support the critique provided by Lord Anderson in the other place. It is not long since terrorism prevention and investigation measures were reluctantly introduced, which see significant infringements of a person’s liberty without the use of a criminal court to protect the public from a risk of terrorism. Recently, this House gave cautious support for state threat prevention and investigation measures, but the application of similar ideas, not for the purposes of countering terrorism or espionage, but in the field of protest, is utterly disproportionate and unnecessary. The nature of the SDPO is less defined and lacks similar oversight, limitations or protections compared even with TPIMs or STPIMS, and that is extraordinary. The possibility of a prison sentence for a breach is ridiculous, and the trigger for the imposition of an SDPO is many times lower. Again, the question is: where next? It is a slippery slope indeed. The police do not ask for these powers, and the whole notion should be removed from the Bill.
Finally, we support new clause 1, which seeks to clearly define the meaning of serious disruption and put an appropriate threshold on it. That definition is crucial for a number of other offences and powers. The Government amendment in lieu puts in place so low a threshold that we would prefer no definition at all. If this Government want serious harm simply to be “more than minor”, that triggers all sorts of crazy and unacceptable consequences. Crimes could be committed simply because two people or an organisation had to face moderate or even moderate to minor disruption. Frankly, it is such a wishy-washy low bar that the Bill would be better off with no definition at all. Our view remains that this whole Bill is rotten, overblown, unwelcome and a dangerous threat to human rights, perhaps a bit like the Government themselves. It is a dreadful attack on rights, and it is also dreadful that the constitution allows it to happen. Anything that waters it down is welcome, but in reality the whole Bill should go altogether.
Sir Charles Walker
I rise in support of Lords amendments 6 and 20 and to urge the Government not to strike them out. I received some excellent briefings, as many hon. and right hon. Members did, from Big Brother Watch and Liberty, supporting the arguments that will be made this afternoon as to why Lords amendments 6 and 20 should be retained, but actually I found an even better briefing in support of those amendments, and it was provided by the Whips Office.
In “Chamber Brief: Public Order Bill”, the Whips make the best argument possible for retaining these two amendments. If I may, I will just quickly read it out. The brief states:
“Lords amendment 6 removes clause 11: power to stop and search without suspicion from the Bill.”
That sounds an outstanding thing to do. It continues:
“This would mean senior police officers would not be able to give an authorisation allowing a constable in uniform to conduct a suspicion-less stop and search of a person or vehicle”.
That sounds excellent. I do not want suspicion-less stop and searches. It sounds extraordinary that anyone in this House would support suspicion-less stop and searches. In fact, I am surprised that the Whips in my party are requesting colleagues to strike out Lords amendment 6 in relation to suspicion-less stop and searches. When I am going about my business, I do not want to be stopped by a police officer and asked about my business. When I say to the police officer, “Why are you stopping me?”, it seems pretty odd that they can say, “I have not really got a reason to stop you, it is just that I can.”
The Whips’ brief, or the Government’s brief passed through the Whips Office, has a wonderful bit of doublespeak at the end of the paragraph. It states:
“Removal of this clause from the Bill reduces the tools available for the police to use when responding to serious disruption and the Government cannot support it”.
The police do not have these tools yet, so how can the amendment reduce the tools available? That does not make any sense at all.
In promoting their position that Lords amendment 20 should be struck out, the Government say:
“Lords amendment 20 removes clause 20: serious disruption prevention orders made otherwise than on conviction entirely from the Bill. This would mean that an order could not be made by a magistrates court on application by a relevant chief officer of police. It is important that the police have the power to seek an order on application, rather than solely at the point of conviction.”
I understand that, when someone is convicted, the police might have a point of view, but to begin placing restrictions on people before they have been convicted of any crime strikes me as somewhat unBritish.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
There is some factual confusion about this, and I am grateful for the opportunity to clear that up. In the other place, the Lords made an amendment to clause 19, which said that the orders could be made without a conviction. The Government accept that amendment—we do not seek to overturn it—and we accept that a conviction is required before an SDPO can be made. Clause 20 is rather misleadingly titled, because it implies that an SDPO can be made without a conviction. If Members read the clause, however, they will see, now that we have accepted the amendment to clause 19, that it applies to circumstances in which there has been a conviction and the police wish to apply to the court for an SDPO at a later date, which will still be after a conviction has been made, so we have conceded the point that my hon. Friend is making. It is rather confusing because the title of clause 20 is a bit confusing, but we have conceded that point.
Mr David Davis
The Minister is quite right—that describes exactly what the Government are doing—but he has left out one thing: the conviction is up to five years before. Usually in British law, convictions are spent after a certain period. Non-violent convictions are all spent after one year, but the conviction for causing a nuisance will last five years.
Sir Charles Walker
We are so lucky to benefit from my right hon. Friend’s wisdom, which has been built up over a 30-year period, and I thank him for making that important point.
I know that you want Members to make brief contributions, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will conclude. We are at this point, because we criminalised protest during the covid pandemic, and the Chamber did not push back when the Executive did that. We are paying the price. It is all very well being wise after the event. I have always believed that protest was a right, but I was mistaken because rights cannot be taken away from people. Actually, protest is a freedom, and we discovered that during the covid pandemic, when people up and down the country gathered in small town centres and village squares to protest at the restriction on their freedom, perhaps to earn a living as artists and performers. They were often rounded up by the police and arrested. At the time, many of us warned that once this poison was in the country’s bloodstream it would be difficult to get it out. I am deeply disappointed that the Chamber went missing in action for so long. We allowed the Executive, as I say, to get away with appalling abuses of our unwritten constitution, and we are now paying the price for that. I do not think that we should do that, and I will certainly vote against the Government’s attempts to strike out the Lords amendment.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
There is lots to consider today. I share the concerns that have been expressed about things like stop and search and locking in. Those things go too far. I want to concentrate on Lords amendment 5, which would introduce an
“Offence of interference with access to or provision of abortion services”,
which is a perfectly sensible thing to do. The Lords, particularly the Conservative peer, Baroness Sugg, have done a great job in tackling what are called, rather clunkily in clause 9, buffer zones, and making them into safe access zones. I therefore urge colleagues to support Lords amendment 5 unamended tonight.
Were it not for the actions of anti-choicers, the amendment would not be necessary at all, but something must be done when, every week nationwide, 2,000 women seeking lawful medical treatment find themselves impeded on their way to the clinic door by unwanted individuals. Now, those individuals would not call themselves protesters; they may just be silently holding a sign, lining the pavement with images or holding rosary beads, but given the slogans on those signs, and the ghoulish images of foetuses, and given that the whole intent of all of that is to shame these women, guilt trip them and stop them exercising their bodily rights—
Dr Huq
I know that the hon. Gentleman is jumping up and down, thinking, “Red light here,” but if he will allow me to develop my point, I will be happy to debate with him.
Okay, these individuals do not call themselves protesters—they are not those angry young radicals—but the whole point of these actions is to deter, to dissuade and to knock off course those women who have made a very difficult decision, and probably the most agonising decision of their lives. We could therefore call it obstruction.
In 2018 in Ealing, my home patch, I went and saw the evidence logs of our Marie Stopes clinic. It was not just women users of the clinic but women practitioners—medical professionals—describing how they had to run a daily gauntlet just to get to work or to have a completely legal procedure.
Five years ago, our council became the first in the country to introduce a public spaces protection order buffer zone, and protest still occurs every day. I heard the catastrophising of the hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), but he should come to Ealing and see that it has just moved a set number of metres down the road so that it is not right in front of the clinic gate and women can get in and have their procedure without people in their face and without any kind of influences.
Within that, I include Sister Supporter, a pressure group known for its members’ pink high-vis jackets. Towards the end of 2018, they were accompanying women into the clinic because people felt afraid to go on their own. It is an upsetting enough experience as it is without all these layers on top.
Ian Paisley
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. The issue of “for or against abortion” is really not what we are debating here today, but I want to know, loud and clear, whether the hon. Member believes that, if a person is engaged in silent prayer, that person should be arrested.
Dr Huq
Well, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that there is a time and a place for everything. Regarding prayer, does it have to take place literally outside the gates of the clinic at the moment that these women, in their hour of need, are seeking their treatment? Is it necessary for it to take place at that place at that moment? I would say that, no, it is not.
We had this argument over the vaccination centres, didn’t we? The anti-vax people would try to deter people from getting in the door. Everyone should be able to seek lawful medical treatment—this procedure has been legal in this country since 1967—without interference. That is what I believe. It is public highway issue as well.
As I say, Sister Supporter, our local campaign group, wishes that it did not have to be there—and it does not, now. The problem is that only three other local authorities have followed that PSPO route, because they have enough on their plate without that onerous process and without the threat of a legal challenge. In Ealing, it has been upheld three times—in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
The other week, the Prime Minister was challenged at that Dispatch Box—I had a question that week as well—by someone raising a case from Birmingham. He said that, yes, we do accept the freedom of thought, conscience and belief, but that, at the same time, there are freedoms of women to seek legal treatment unimpeded and uninterfered with, and we have to balance the two.
Dr Huq
I want to carry on for a minute, actually.
Some of the tactics that such people employ include live-streaming, filming and uploading to Facebook, despite there sometimes being a violent ex-partner in the background. I do not disagree with praying or informing, as I think people call it, but there is a time and a place for everything. That informing should take place at the GP surgery down the line.
The hon. Member for Northampton South said that the police are being made into a laughing stock, but our police in Ealing welcome the measure because it frees them from patrolling two different groups outside the clinic, so they can fight real crime. There is real crime out there.
Anyone should be able to use medical services without navigating an obstacle course of people trying to impose their view of what is right on the process to dissuade and deter. Even the reviled Iranian regime got rid of its morality police, so why do we allow them here?
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Member is making a good and powerful point. Several people have written to me about the Bill with varying views. Does she agree that there is a huge contradiction in people saying, “We have a right to protest in buffer zones,” yet denying women the freedom of choice for themselves? At that point, it is not protesting but bullying and harassment. That is the difference.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Does she share my frustration at the number of men who have stood up in this Chamber and pontificated when they will never have to make that choice? They are telling women that they should put up with being harassed when they are just seeking healthcare. [Interruption.] I have heard a number of men in this Chamber shouting down women, but perhaps they should pipe down and listen to our perspectives, because none of them will ever have to go through it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It is important that we do not personalise the issue. That goes for everybody in the Chamber.
Dr Huq
I completely accept what the hon. Lady just said. As a woman, Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that, if any woman present in the Chamber were walking down a dark alley, they would shudder if someone was there. That feeling is magnified x amount of times for women having that difficult and distressing procedure when people determined to stop them having a termination are in their path. Those people can have their say, but let us move them away from the clinic door.
Buffer zones are not outlandish. They exist in France, Spain, Canada, Australia and some US states. In Ireland, they are legislating on them at the moment. We will be out of step with the rest of the UK, because a Bill is being brought in in Northern Ireland and a private Member’s Bill will become law this year in Scotland.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), because His Majesty the King was visiting my constituency today, so I arrived back too late to hear him propose the amendment. It is worth pointing out, however, that both Houses have now voted heavily in favour of the principle of buffer zones. We have to understand the passions behind what is proposed, but it is not really a relevant amendment that advances the argument. In fact, it tries to set the argument back against what both Houses have already decided.
Dr Huq
The hon. Gentleman and knight of the realm makes a completely incontestable point. When we last voted on it in this place, we voted in favour by almost 3:1. In the other place, the vote was taken on voices, because the support was overwhelming. Hon. Members should not fall for a wrecking amendment; they should reject it.
This is about not the rights and wrongs of abortion—that question was settled in 1967—but the rights of women to go about their lawful daily business. It is not even a religious issue: the Bishop of Manchester in the other place made a barnstorming speech on the day.
As we said after the tragic killing of Sarah Everard, she was only walking home. Women should be allowed to use our pavements unimpeded. We saw the re-sentencing of her killer yesterday, so it all came back, and sadly, Sabina Nessa and Zara Aleena have been killed since. We cannot stand by, do nothing and say, “This is all okay.” It is obviously not, when 10,000 women a year are affected. Who could argue with safe access? I urge hon. Members to support Lords amendment 5 unamended.
Sir John Hayes
I was elected to this place in a free and fair election, and I come here and say not what I am asked or told to, but what I believe. Similarly, my constituents make representations to me in a free and open way, fearlessly. They sometimes agree with me and they sometimes disagree. Part of the glory of our democracy is that we can exchange views, we can learn from others, and we can disagree openly, fairly and, as I have said, without fear. That would once have been taken as read as a way of describing not just this place and our representative democracy, but the character of a free society in which we are all proud to live.
Sir Julian Lewis
Surely the point that we have to be careful about is the use of words—which the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), whom I regard as a personal friend, did use—such as “impede”. Thinking and praying is not impeding. Actually shouting, livestreaming and doing offensive things to people who are going to have a procedure is impeding. If I understand correctly the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), he is talking only about things that do not impede. I think that is right, and that is the only basis on which I could vote for his amendment.
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. Friend will be pleased—but not surprised, given that he knows me so well—to hear that I entirely agree with him. I would not support loud, aggressive protests outside abortion clinics. They do take place in some other countries, but the evidence that they take place in this country is extremely thin. Indeed, a previous Health Secretary conducted a review to establish that fact. If that was in any way likely or possible, or was made more possible by this amendment, I would not be speaking in support of it, so my right hon. Friend is entirely right. This is about peaceful, silent protests.
In moving this Bill at its inception, the Government rightly said they were doing so because they were against violent disruptive protests. They had in mind people gluing themselves to roads, and stopping ambulances that were rushing to save lives. I support this Bill. I support its objectives because that kind of disruptive and violent protest is incompatible with a free, open and peaceful society. But it is extraordinary that, simultaneously, having said that they were in favour of peaceful protests—the defence being, “We are in favour of an open society, different opinions, the right to put your case by protesting peacefully”—the Government are now failing to support an amendment, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South because the Government refused to table it, to protect people’s right to protest in the very peaceful and indeed silent way that a few weeks ago they were saying they were prepared to defend.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
It is not a matter of interpretation, because it seems to me that this amendment would create exactly the kind of conflict and disruption to public peace that it is intended to avoid? If somebody kneels ostentatiously to pray in front of someone on their way to an abortion clinic, what is that intended to do? This amendment says that
“such communication or prayer shall not, without more, be taken to be—
(a) influencing any person’s decision”,
but why else would somebody kneel down and pray in front of a woman on her way to an abortion clinic unless it was intended to influence that person’s decision? There is a balance to be struck between the rights of people who pray, like my right hon. Friend and me, and the rights of people trying to avail themselves of a perfectly legal service to which they have a right.
Sir John Hayes
I do not know how often my hon. Friend prays—maybe more often than I do, although my need to do so is probably greater—but he must understand that prayer does two things: it sends a message, one hopes, to the Almighty; and it provides solace for the person praying. So the person praying outside the clinic may well be sending a message, but that message is just as likely to be transcendental as to be intended for any individual in proximity.
The idea that we should interrupt the relationship between an individual and their God seems to me to be pretty monstrous, particularly as amendment (a) states specifically that any activity, communication or prayer shall not influence any person’s decision or, more especially, instruct or impede any person. This is not about interfering with another. Rather, it is about expressing a view to oneself, to the Lord and perhaps to others; but that could surely be said of any prayer at any time. Are we going to arrest people in other public places? Once this is allowed and the police are permitted to apprehend people for what they think and what they are praying about, why not arrest them in other public places? Why does this have to apply only to abortion clinics? Once we open this door, why would the police not arrest people outside mosques or temples, or in any other public space where they are praying to illustrate an opinion—or indeed, as I have said, to express it not horizontally but vertically, to a greater power above us?
Christine Jardine
This is an extremely important point. I do not think anyone in this House wants to restrict anyone’s right to pray, but we are trying to differentiate here and consider the impact of that action on the women who are going in for a very traumatic experience. Many of them will be grieving and many will have been through a traumatic experience to get them to this point, only to then be presented with someone telling them that what they are doing is wrong, increasing that trauma. Regardless of the intention of the person praying, which I would defend forever, the impact on the women is the problem.
Sir John Hayes
But in a free society the impact we make on others by our sentiments, by what we do, say and, indeed, by what we pray about, is the inevitable consequence of the openness that I would have thought all of us in this place would celebrate. In this case, the amendment states specifically that we should not influence or obstruct, but the more general context in which we are having this debate is a world in which the ability to express a view that others might find offensive or unreasonable is being curbed every single day as our freedom is being eroded, and all the things we hold dear put at risk.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes
I will not give way again; I see that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if not yet on your feet, are edging forward in your Chair, and so asking me to bring my remarks to a conclusion.
Freedom is not just about the capacity to hear from others with whom we agree; a free and open society is one in which we hear from those with whom we do not agree. That freedom is at risk. Amendment (a) is most reasonable, and I urge the House to accept it with these final words from the author and statesman John Buchan:
“You think that a wall as solid as the earth separates civilisation from barbarism. I tell you the division is a thread, a sheet of glass.”
Today I will vote against barbarism by voting for this amendment. I mission everyone in this Chamber to exercise their conscience and vote for it with me.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I will confine my comments to the amendments that touch on the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair. We did not look at the debate on abortion buffer zones because that was not part of the original Bill, so I will not comment on that. In general terms, some of the points made by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) could be carried across. I could very well ask of him why, if that is what he so clearly believes, he would support a power to stop and search without reasonable suspicion? So it cuts both ways.
However, I will confine my comments to support for Lords amendments 1, 6 to 9, 20, 21, 23, 27, 28, 31, 32 and 33, which can basically be grouped into suspicion and stop and search, serious disruption prevention orders, and the meaning of the phrase “serious disruption”. I will speak to the Joint Committee’s report on our legislative scrutiny of the Bill, which was published on 8 June last year. It was a unanimous report of our cross-party Committee, which of course contains both MPs and peers.
The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy, which should be championed and protected rather than stifled. The Joint Committee concluded that while the stated intention behind the Bill was to strengthen police powers to tackle dangerous and highly disruptive protest tactics, its measures went well beyond that to the extent that we feel the Bill poses an unacceptable threat to the fundamental right to engage in peaceful protest. We have heard speeches about the historic basis of that right, and of course it is also protected in modern times under article 10 of the European convention on human rights, which deals with freedom of speech, and article 11, which deals with freedom of association.
In our report, we recommended that the power to stop and search without reasonable suspicion should be removed from the Bill. Other hon. Members have spoken about that in some detail. Basically, what we said was that the power to stop and search without reasonable suspicion inevitably gives rise to a risk of arbitrary or discriminatory use, and that it is disproportionate and inconsistent with the right to engage in peaceful protest. As we heard from other hon. Members, the police themselves said it is counterproductive and I do not understand that it is a power the police actually want as a whole. Lords amendments 6 to 9 take that out of the Bill, and I think that should be supported by this House.
Chris Philp
I am extremely grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for giving way. On a point of clarification, clause 11, prior to amendment by the Lords, states that although an individual does not have to be subject to suspicion before an officer can activate this section, the officer has to “reasonably believe” that a number of offences may be committed. So it is not a wholly unconstrained power to search. That reasonable suspicion in clause 11(1) does have to be engaged.
Joanna Cherry
I am not sure the Minister is right about that. I think what he is trying to say is that the police officer could have a highly subjective view prior to stopping, and a highly subjective view is not a reasonable suspicion. We took all these matters into account in our report.
Stuart C. McDonald
I think what the Minister is trying to point out is that before the 24-hour period where the suspicionless stop and search can come into force, there has to be a reasonable belief that somebody somewhere in the locality may commit one of these wishy-washy offences. If that happens, then everybody in that locality can be subject to suspicionless stop and search. I am afraid that is just not an adequate answer to the fact that everybody in that locality could be subject to suspicionless stop and search. It is nonsensical.
Joanna Cherry
The Minister must know that we are still bound by the European convention on human rights. Clearly, from what the Home Secretary said earlier this afternoon, some Government Members are trying to find a pretext to take us out of the convention, but we are still bound by it just now. The Minister must know that in order to interfere with freedom of assembly or freedom of association, under article 11 the interference has to be lawful, necessary and proportionate. What my hon. Friend just described is not lawful, necessary and proportionate.
Joanna Cherry
The Minister will get to speak at the end. I do not want to take up too much time as I have already spoken for five minutes and I do not want to upset Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister can take the tenor of the comments so far across the House, including from the Government Benches. People are not happy about the power to stop and search without reasonable suspicion. The cross-party Committee of MPs and peers shared that unhappiness.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I have spoken in favour of this legislation in each of its stages thus far. I would like to continue to express my support for the Bill and the principles behind it, and also place on the record my appreciation for the work that so many colleagues have done. As a relative newbie, it has been a learning experience to hear the expertise that has been brought to bear to ensure that, as this legislation passes through Parliament, it has become more focused and more able to deliver the intended outcomes.
This morning I visited my constituent Mr Bhalla at his home because, for the second time, his car had been stolen from his driveway. He wanted to express his frustration at having been a victim of a serious and very costly crime for the second time. Often, when we debate in the House we focus on a great deal of the detail, but when constituents have been a victim of crime, we feel a great desire to ensure that Parliament takes advantage of every possible measure. My constituent certainly expressed his view robustly to me—he would like to see suspicionless stop and search for anybody on his road, wherever they might happen to live. He would like the strongest possible measures to be taken.
We need to achieve an appropriate balance between protecting the right to exercise free speech and to protest, on the one hand, and preventing unreasonable disruption to our constituents’ lives on the other. I represent an outer London constituency, and one of my reasons for speaking in favour of the Bill at previous stages was the disruption, frustration and difficulties that have been caused for my constituents while they are trying to go about their normal daily lives.
Personally, I have a great deal of sympathy with some protesters, such as those who have been camping out and seeking to disrupt work on HS2, which is causing huge difficulties in my constituency and which many of my constituents continue to oppose. However, I recognise that for the thousands of constituents who travel by car or on public transport and have found that as a result of peaceful but extremely disruptive protests they cannot get to work, attend medical appointments, visit family members or get their children to school, it is clear that the balance needs to be shifted. Their interests, and those of other law-abiding people who are perfectly reasonably exercising their rights and their need to go about their daily business, must be appropriately protected.
It seems to me that greater focus on the definition of serious disruption will make the powers in the Bill more legally effective and enforceable. We have all had experiences of supporting things and then discovering that in the real world they do not work quite as well as we had hoped, so I very much welcome amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 1, which will bring such a focus and will ensure that the powers in the Bill work effectively to remedy the impact of serious disruption that is not reasonable, while maintaining free speech.
I also welcome amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 17 on the protection of journalists. We all value the media’s ability to scrutinise the work of the Government and the various arms of the state, as we did during the covid era when it was difficult for this House to do so. It is enormously helpful that we now have greater clarity.
Let us consider what will happen once the Bill has made its way through this House. I was struck by what my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said about the history of the right to peaceful protest. Most importantly, he pointed out that legislation is all interpreted by the courts.
As a magistrate in north-west London, I recall people being brought in who had been stopped and searched and were found to be in possession of bladed articles. I remember one case of a man who explained to the court that he was a carpet fitter, that the bladed articles were the tools he needed to fit carpets, and that he travelled around on public transport to appointments to fit them at various locations. He provided appropriate evidence to demonstrate it, so the court acquitted him. In other cases involving similar offences, it was clear that the individuals concerned were seeking to do harm to others, perhaps in connection with drug dealing, so the court took a different view. It is always valuable to remember that interpretation and enforcement will be down to juries of our peers, to magistrates or to judges. We have learned to place a great deal of faith in our judicial system’s ability to interpret “reasonableness” in a way that reflects the expectations and aspirations of all our constituents.
Finally, I join several colleagues in expressing my continuing support for Lords amendment 5 on buffer zones. I think it right that the House should agree to it. I have listened carefully to the views of many colleagues, and I understand the need to ensure that those of a religious faith have the freedom to express their views. None the less, access to medical and clinical services should be available to all our constituents without undue disruption. It seems to me that their lordships have done a good job of refining what we mean in the drafting of the Bill. This House would be wise to welcome the amendment; I shall certainly vote in support.
Ian Paisley
I commend the way in which the hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) spoke to the amendments; I think that he served the House extremely well.
Let me begin by saying that I am opposed to harassment. I think it intolerable for a woman to feel that she is being harassed, and indeed for a man to feel that he is being harassed. We were given a demonstration of harassment in the Chamber earlier today when a female Member came in, told male Members to “pipe down” because essentially this was none of their business, and then beetled out. That is harassment according to any definition of it, and it is wrong and should be called out as such. This is a good debate, and it is important for us to have it. Debate is what the Chamber is for, and we should not be afraid of combative ideas, but telling Members to pipe down just because they are male is not an argument that should be entertained in this place. So harassment should be called out, and we should not be afraid of doing that.
I object to, for instance, the harassment of women who go into abortion clinics if that is their free choice and they wish to do it. I am not advocating that in any way, but harassment cuts both ways. It is important that those who wish to pray, to express their identity or to make points that are fair in a non-combative way should be encouraged to do so. A Home Office review published in 2018 found that many protesters in the UK—it identified some of the places involved—were simply praying, sometimes displaying banners and sometimes distributing literature. Is the proportionate response to that introducing a law that essentially says, “You cannot pray silently in public”? That seems to be what the Government are saying today.
Ian Paisley
I will make this point, and then I will give way.
We are all aware of the Bible story about Daniel daring to pray and being put in jail—
Chris Philp
The Government are not saying anything about this matter. It is a free vote, and there is no Government position on the “buffer zone” amendment.
Ian Paisley
I look forward to the Minister joining me in the Lobby this evening.
Whenever we walk into the Palace of Westminster, we walk beneath a massive portrait of Moses by Benjamin West. We walk through St Stephen’s Hall, and what is St Stephen’s Hall? It is a church. We walk over the catacombs under which is another church. We come to this place—to the “mother of Parliaments”—and debate a piece of legislation that essentially says, “If you dare to pray in a certain part of this Christian nation, in silence, you will be arrested.”
Ian Paisley
I want to make this point. I will give way later.
I think that Members need to stop and seriously ask themselves whether that is the sort of law that they wish to pass. The Government have an opportunity here. Is the Minister willing to say—perhaps he will want to intervene at this point—that the Government would exclude silent prayer from the Bill as an indication that the liberty of freedom of thought, of the freedom to have an opinion in one’s head, will be allowed? That would be the moderate thing for them to do.
Freedom of thought is a right enshrined in article 9 of the European convention on human rights and in article 18 of the international covenant on civil and political rights, while freedom of opinion is enshrined in article 10 of the convention. These are international rights which we should all support and defend to the very end, because they are about our right to think, to express ourselves and to maintain an opinion that we hold dear. Even if it is an objectionable opinion—even if a person does not believe in the God to whom we are praying—we are entitled to have that opinion, and to prevent that in any way is to remove a legitimate right. However, we have heard a justification in the House, and I really had to pinch myself when I heard it. The justification was that we should limit our thought and limit our opinion.
Ian Paisley
I am going to make this point. I promise I will give way after that.
The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) stated very clearly that praying was not proper in certain places. The hon. Member is entitled to that opinion, but where is not the proper place to pray? Is here not the proper place to pray—will that be the next argument? Where ultimately is not the proper place to pray?
Ashley Dalton
I would like the hon. Member to help me understand why it is particularly important that prayer must be carried out openly, publicly and ostentatiously. Most often, if we pray, no one else will know that we are doing it. He briefly referred to the Bible and to Daniel in the lion’s den. I draw his attention to Matthew, chapter 6, verses 5 and 6:
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others…But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.”
Is it not possible to do that privately, without intimidating others by doing it ostentatiously and publicly?
Ian Paisley
The gospel of Matthew is a wonderful gospel—as a son of the manse, I know a little bit about this—but the reference I made was to Daniel, who was praying privately in his home. I did not talk about ostentatious public prayer. Maybe the Member should have used their ears and listened to the point that I made, which was about silent prayer and about freedom of thought in someone’s head, not freedom of outward expression. If the Member had listened, she would have got the answer to her point.
Despite the level of crime across this society—I think there were over 500 knife crimes last year—are we actually going to ask the police to get engaged and be detained in questioning people about what they are thinking in certain parts of the United Kingdom? That is a complete waste of police resources and police time, and it should not be done. When hon. Members stand up in this House and demand more police action in the future, it should be pointed out to them that constraining the police in this way and saying that they must chase after people who are silently thinking things, silently worshipping or silently praying is a total waste of police resources.
In Northern Ireland we have brought in a safe access zone law. I do not like that law—it was brought in by the Northern Ireland Assembly while I was a Member of this House—but it states that there must not be an unnecessary or disproportionate response from the police. Unfortunately, what we are doing in this House is bringing in disproportionate actions by the police when we should be moving away from them. Northern Ireland’s law gives the police at the right to use discretion and take steps to calm a protest, as opposed to stopping a protest. It also says that the Department of Health must maintain and regularly publish a list of all potential premises where the clinics could be taking place, so that people are aware of where they are so that they cannot, for example, be caught out wearing a T-shirt or a badge, or driving a car with a bumper sticker on it, in an area where it might give someone offence.
Eddie Hughes
The point that the hon. Gentleman has just made is incredibly important. In the circumstances that I was talking about previously, the lady was arrested in Birmingham and the police arrive to interrogate and subsequently arrest her. Given the other crimes that were going on in Birmingham at that time, it is important to see that the police had clearly determined that the most important thing they had to do at that particular time was not to deal with knife crime or with people stealing tools out of other people’s vans to stop them earning a living, but to arrest and interrogate a woman who was silently praying outside a clinic that was closed. Surely that shows a sense of complete disproportionality on the part of the police.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It is important that interventions are short, and I know that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) will want to come to the conclusion of his remarks now, as he has been speaking for 10 minutes.
Ian Paisley
I will conclude now, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I agree with the point that the hon. Member has made. The arrest of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was atrocious. It sends out a terrible message to women and to anyone who wishes to engage in silent prayer in this nation. I am glad that that attempt at a conviction was overturned by the court and thrown out. It is unfortunate that she has been arrested again today by another police officer saying, “What are you thinking? What are you praying?” That is wrong, and we need to stand up against that sort of harassment.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5.
I recognise that there is a genuine problem that the Bill and the Lords amendments seek to address, of harassment, intimidation and offensive behaviour directed at women going into abortion clinics. I recognise that this requires policing and that it is appropriate for the authorities to stop harassment and intimidation. This House and the other place have decided that additional legislation, on top of what is already on the statute book, is required to enable that additional policing. All the arguments made by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), who has campaigned so hard on this issue for so long, have been accepted by the House, and I do not think there is any particular value in unpicking her arguments. That debate has been had.
The question now before us, and the purpose of amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5, is about what is to happen in these safe access zones, as they are now to be called. I recognise that is the intention behind the Lords amendment, and the intention behind the original clause, but my concern is that, in asserting a general principle of something we do not want, and couching that desire in very broad terms, we are taking a momentous step. We are crossing an enormous river. The Rubicon was actually a very small stream, but it was a momentous step. When we criminalise prayer, private thought or, indeed, consensual conversations between two adults, we are doing something of enormous significance in our country and our democracy.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I agree with everything my hon. Friend says, but my concern is about the motivation for a person to silently pray there. What motivation do they have other than to be seen by a woman who is at her lowest ebb? It is not the best day of her life. In fact, it will be one of the worst days of her life.
Danny Kruger
I recognise that, but the difficulty is that none of us can know their motivation. I can accept that my hon. Friend’s judgment is that the motivation is pretty malign. The prayer might be well intentioned, but the attempt to dissuade a lady from accessing an abortion clinic is genuine. There is no doubt that is what is happening. My concern is about the principle of this law, how it will be applied and the precedent it sets in our democracy.
My concern is that the Bill authorises the police to ask exactly the question raised by my hon. Friend. It authorises them to go up to a private citizen standing on a street corner, not overtly harassing anyone, and to ask the question that the police asked the lady in Birmingham, “What are you praying about? What is in your head at this time?” They could see that she was not doing anything offensive, but they concluded that she was probably thinking something of which they disapproved, so they took steps to arrest her. I think we are taking a very concerning step as a country in authorising the police to act in that way.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I utterly respect the sincerity with which amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5 was moved and why my hon. Friend is supporting it. I am pleased to hear that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) is against harassment, but that is the point of amendment (a). It does not say that any person engaged in consensual communication or silent prayer shall avoid harassment; it says that it shall not be taken as harassment. However ostentatiously someone is praying, or however aggressively they are seeking to open consensual communication with an individual going to a clinic, it shall not be taken to be harassment. It is a blank cheque for a person to behave in a harassing way, because they can defend themselves by saying, “Oh, but it says here that what I was doing shall not be taken as harassment.”
Danny Kruger
The behaviour that will not be taken as harassment is private prayer. Other actions that may be taken—obstructing a person walking down the street was what my hon. Friend suggested earlier—will be in scope. What should not be in scope is a person thinking something in their head. That is the only defence on which we are trying to insist, and I invite Members to consider whether they want to pass a law that will ban people from thinking something. Other forms of harassment or obstruction will be in scope of the law. So I do not think the intention is to stop people praying—I do not think that is what the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton, the Government or indeed any of us want to do. We need to send a clear signal of the intention of Parliament through this amendment, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) for tabling it. I ask Members to consider that if they vote against it, they are voting to ban private prayer. Of course it is a special case and we are talking about tiny zones, and of course we can all sympathise with the intention of the clause, but the point is the principle of this—
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
When we legislate, being specific matters. So let us be clear: the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton South is not about private prayer, but about “silent prayer”. Silent prayer can be done in somebody’s face, can it not, whether or not what the person praying is thinking is private in their head? That shows the challenge here. This is not actually about prayer; it is about where it is taking place. So will the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) clarify, for the avoidance of doubt, that he has no problem with recognising that somebody praying in another person’s face, silent or not, is unwelcome?
Danny Kruger
The difficulty is with the private prayer—the silent prayer; that is what we are trying to protect. If the person is standing offensively in somebody’s face and trying to obstruct their access, of course they will come within scope. We are trying to protect people such as the lady who was standing quietly at the side, praying to herself, as far as we know. She might have been thinking about her shopping, but that was what the police were interested in; she was asked, “What are you doing standing over here quietly?”.
I am afraid to say that there was always going to be difficulty with this new law, because the police are going to be required to make all sorts of strange interpretations and judgments about why somebody is doing something. Nevertheless, in passing a law to create these zones we must consider people who are doing this utterly inoffensive thing, standing quietly at the side praying.
Dr Huq
Let me just give the hon. Gentleman the example of Ealing, where we have had our zone since 2018—this is now its sixth year. Only three breaches have occurred and none has resulted in a conviction, because these people are usually law-abiding. Only one came close—I think it is still being legislated on and is probably sub judice—because it was done as a stunt. In reality, these things do not occur. People can pray elsewhere, and every royal medical college, including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, as well as the British Medical Association and all medical opinion support this measure.
Danny Kruger
Okay, well, I will wind up now, because I think the point has been well rehearsed. My concern is with the principle we are setting here. Of course, everyone must have sympathy with these women, and we need to protect them from harassment, but where does this lead and what we are doing by saying that people should not be allowed to pray quietly on their own?
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Policing by consent is central to how our criminal justice system works in the UK and the authority by which officers wield the power given to them. That is why this issue is challenging and why we are having this debate. It is seen as being about balancing the rights of protest in this situation with other rights to go about everyday legitimate business. It is important to take a balanced and sensitive approach.
Several legal minds here are much greater than mine. I am not a qualified lawyer, but I am standing here as the only former police officer participating in this debate. I know who the other two former police officers are and they are not here. I have approached this debate, these clauses and the Lords amendments by thinking about what would happen if I, as a police officer, went to attend a “spontaneous protest”, meaning that as a constable, the first person there, it would be on me to make the decisions about what was legitimate or not and about how I carried out my duties. I also thought about what would happen if I was part of a team of police officers policing a bigger protest, and about the instructions that I would be given by the silver and bronze commanders in relation to that protest and how they would tell me how to interpret the law.
I found it interesting when the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, who is no longer in his place, intervened on the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) to say that he would explain that this is confusing. Police officers are dealing with an ambiguity in the moment all the time. If we create legislation in this place that is confusing and if we have not provided clarity, it is not surprising that police officers will be found not to be applying the law correctly.
Interestingly, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who is also no longer in his place, talked about the interviews that His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue undertook with police officers. I cannot totally repeat what the former silver public order commander to whom I am married called this Bill, but I can say that it was a pile of something. I will leave Members to speculate on what else he said. These are complex decisions to be made in real time, regardless of rank. Policing by consent is how we ensure that we carry out our duties safely.
Chris Philp
The Government accept that protection for journalists might helpfully be set out, and that is why Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 17 will substantively do what the Lords request, albeit in slightly different language.
Wendy Chamberlain
I am pleased to hear that.
If Lords amendment 1 is disagreed to and Government amendment (a) to it is passed, I would disagree with the broadening of the definition of “serious disruption”. Whatever the Government may think of protesters, they are not terrorists, and applying similar legislation where no offence is committed is simply wrong.
Chris Philp
As I said in my earlier intervention, the Government have accepted that serious disruption prevention orders can only be handed out by a court, following a conviction. The title of clause 20 is somewhat confusing, but we have accepted the point that there must be a conviction first.
Wendy Chamberlain
I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, but the point I made while he was not in his place still stands: this is confusing. We are presenting confusing legislation to police officers to apply and potentially to take away people’s liberty accordingly.
Policing needs to be done with consent. This is knee-jerk legislation, as I have said throughout, to replace powers that already exist and that the police say they can utilise now. It also prevents the important discussions that take place between protest groups and police officers; we are going to create a chilling effect not only on the right to protest, but on the relationships that help us to enable legitimate protest. I think that is why the Lords rejected these clauses outright in their previous guise in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The Lords have attempted to ameliorate the worst excesses of this Bill, and I will certainly vote in support of keeping the Lords amendments in place.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I rise to speak to Lords amendment 5 and the amendments to it put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer).
Buffer zones are basically public spaces protection orders, extending a distance of 150 m. PSPOs, as they are called, are generally used for antisocial behaviour. We have three in Doncaster, apparently, and I have personally applied for one in Conisbrough in my constituency. We have a set of seating in the middle of town where we have people under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and beggars, and they make a nuisance of themselves with antisocial behaviour. They are killing the town centre. I have been refused a PSPO there, but I will continue, because I think it is the right thing to do.
Lords amendment 5 will put a mandatory buffer zone, a PSPO, around every single clinic in the country. Regardless of what we think about that, I want to tell people in this House and in my constituency what that will look like. The drunks and the people under the influence of drugs in Conisbrough are going to continue to be able to make a nuisance of themselves, damage the local economy and scare old and young people who want to go to the shops; yet a lady or a gentleman who has a real strong faith and believes they can help the people coming in to a clinic is not going to be able to do that.
The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) talked about people praying and standing in front of people, and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) asked why they have to do it there. Well, if that is the worst day of a woman’s life, and I accept that it probably is one of the worst days of a woman’s life, if she saw somebody there who was praying respectfully, who was there to help, and she knew they were there, she could ignore that lady or gentleman who was praying and just walk in—but, if it was the worst day of her life, she might want somebody just to turn to for that second. Also, if somebody is being coerced into going into one of those places to have a forced abortion, that lady or gentleman could be somebody who is there to help.
I agree with everybody else in this House that shouting, screaming and holding up placards is an awful thing to do and should not happen, but silent prayer and consensual conversations should not be banned. The papers will get hold of this in a year’s time: we are the party of law and order, but we will be arresting people for prayer and for conversations, while letting the people who are harassing the public in our towns and our shops continue to do so.
I ask all Conservative Members in this House to think about amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5, which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South has put forward. It simply asks for people to be allowed to pray and to have those consensual conversations. Amendment (b) provides that, before we put this law in place, we carry out a review on it. That is what I am asking for.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I have immense respect for many people who have spoken in the debate. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) is no longer in his place. He and I might be in different political parties, but on issues of civil liberties, we often find common cause. I am not sure that my 15-year-old self would have thought that possible, but it is certainly true—for example, we are working, as Back-Bench Members of Parliament, to raise concerns about the restrictions on parliamentary sovereignty in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.
I have been very struck by the debate, which I believe crosses party political lines. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who I knew as the hon. Member for Colchester back when I was that 15-year-old who could not conceive of points on which I might find common ground with Government Members. But there are such points, and this—speaking up for freedoms—is one.
I am very struck that the concept of freedom that has been articulated in the Chamber so far is a myopic one. That myopic freedom comes from a blind spot that I believe most of the Members in this Chamber must recognise when talking about access to abortion, which is exactly what we are talking about. By definition of who they are, they will never have been in the position of the women for whom those buffer zones make a difference, so their experience of the human rights at stake in the legislation, and of the issues that we face, is inevitably tempered by their own understanding, in which they focus on the idea that this is purely an issue of freedom of speech and fail to recognise that other, much-cherished right in this country: the right to privacy. My remarks will be very much about that and about how we cannot be a free society if women, just as much as men, are not able to exercise those rights equally.
I am very taken by the fact that it is International Women’s Day tomorrow. I have to say that I have become increasingly cynical about that day. It deflates me. We spend a year talking about how we are going to celebrate women, but precious little time working on advancing their rights. Well, I see Lords amendment 5 and opposition to amendment (a) as being about advancing women’s rights and doing what the suffragettes told us to do: “Deeds, not words”. Why do I see that? I see that because I think we must start by clarifying some of the myths that have been presented to the Chamber.
I listened respectfully to the hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) because this is the time and place for him to exercise that most important democratic right of freedom of speech. I have listened to many speakers talk about how we are somehow criminalising prayer. Let us be very clear for the avoidance of doubt: no prayer is being criminalised. Nothing in the Bill will do that, except, perhaps, for a gardener who is carrying a spade because they are praying that their carrots or green-sprouting broccoli will grow but who is stopped by the police—as clause 2 will allow—who argue that the gardener’s intent in carrying the spade is to dig a tunnel. The gardener’s prayer for the vegetables is secondary when they explain to the police why they were carrying a spade.
Let us be very clear: nothing in Lords amendment 5 criminalises prayer. It says what most people would recognise: that there is a time and a place for everything and a balance in those rights—in the freedom of speech to tell a woman that you do not think she has a right to make a choice over her own body, and her right to privacy. When she has made her choice, she should not be impeded.
Let us be honest about this: the people praying outside abortion clinics are not finding the right time and place for it. That is not just what I think; it is what the vast majority of the British public think because they recognise that when a woman has made that choice, she should not face someone trying to change her mind right up to the wire. She should be respected for her choice.
Stella Creasy
I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will intervene with some rhetorical flourish about the purpose of freedom in this place. What about the freedom of a woman to make her choice in peace? That is what the Lords amendment does. I will happily give way because I am sure that he wants to come in on that point.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Lady has provoked me to intervene and to be rhetorical as well, but I simply say this to her. She suggests that someone could be impeded by silence. Given that that is entirely irrational, will she answer this question: does she support the arrest and charging of a woman, as has happened? Does she endorse that, and does she want to see more of it?
Stella Creasy
It is an irony to me that Members of the party that once claimed to be the party of law and order are trying to argue against the law and order that a PSPO establishes.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me be clear that I am not arguing for the criminalisation of silence. My argument is about the location. The right hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous if he does not recognise the effect of somebody who disagrees so passionately with a woman’s right to privacy in making that choice standing there while she does it. He talked about some of the literary greats, so let us talk about Margaret Atwood and “Under His Eye.” That is what these people praying represent by being there at that most tender moment for a woman making that choice. It is their physical presence, not their praying, that is the issue.
If we respect people having different opinions on abortion when it comes to free speech, we also have respect that when someone has made that choice, they should not be repeatedly challenged for it. The Members who want to challenge those women by praying outside and supporting others who do so have no idea why those women are attending the clinics; they have no idea of the histories and stories. They can only listen to the countless testimonies that the women attending the clinics do find this harassing. That is why so many have called for the PSPOs. They do find it intimidating. That is not the right time and place.
In tabling the amendment, the hon. Member for Northampton South is attempting to complicate something that is very simple. I pay tribute to Baroness Sugg for tidying up our original amendment and clarifying where the 150-metre zone will be. In a very small zone around an abortion clinic, that is not the right time and place. People can pray—of course they can. Although I might disagree with the hon. Gentleman on whether that is still intimidating, I will defend to the hilt people’s right to pray. What I will not do is place that ahead of a woman’s right to privacy and say that a woman who has made the decision to have an abortion must continue to face these people, because somehow it is about their freedom of speech unencumbered.
We need to be honest and recognise that there will never be a point at which the people praying agree with the choice that a woman has made, so there is never going to be a point at which their prayers are welcome. There is never going to be a point at which those prayers are not designed to intimidate or to destabilise a very difficult decision. Look at the widespread evidence that shows that the people conducting these prayer marathons outside our abortion clinics are not acting simply to help women, and that they are not well intentioned. I think we can all make our own decision on what is well intentioned. The hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) says it is not offensive, but I disagree. I think that when a woman has made a choice, to have someone try continually to undermine that choice is offensive. We both have a right in this place to make our argument. Where we do not have a right to make that argument is right outside an abortion clinic with a woman who just needs her right to privacy to be upheld.
The hon. Member for Northampton South talked about consensual contact, but that is very unclear. What if a protester walks up to a woman and asks her the time, and she tells them? Does that mean she has engaged in conversation with them, which will allow them to start talking to her about their views on abortion? What if they ask for directions? Will that undermine the provision? The people protesting outside clinics, especially the “40 Days for Life” people, boast about how their presence reduces the number of women having abortions. They say it makes the no-show rate for abortion appointments as high as 75%. This is not benign behaviour. They also claim that those of us who support a woman’s right to choose are “demonic”, and increasingly they suggest we are “satanic” in our support for a woman’s right to privacy. Let us be clear: amendment (a) would not make an abortion clinic buffer zone clearer; it would sabotage a buffer zone by introducing uncertainty about behaviour and about the simple concept of there being a right time and place.
I am conscious of the time available, so I just want to put on the record my gratitude not only to Baroness Sugg, but to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) for all her work, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, and organisations like Sister Supporter. They have stood up for the silent majority—the people who think it is not right to hassle a woman when she is making these choices. That is ultimately what we are here to say. When the vast majority of the public support buffer zones, and when those of us who will be in this position cannot speak freely, as a Scottish colleague raised, then we have a challenge in this place. Freedom of speech is not freedom of speech if 50% are living in fear of what might happen next. Margaret Atwood taught us that. She said that men are worried that women will laugh at them, and women are worried that men might kill them. Do not kill a woman’s right to her freedom. Do not kill a woman’s right to privacy. Let us not sabotage at the last minute abortion buffer zones by supporting amendment (a). We should support Lords amendment 5 and let everybody else move on with their life.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is worth looking at what amendment (a) states. It states:
“No offence is committed under subsection (1) by a person engaged in consensual communication or in silent prayer”.
For the avoidance of doubt, amendment (a) goes on to say that nothing in it should allow people to be harassed or their decision to be changed, such as kneeling down and praying right in front of somebody’s face, or blocking the pavement, or indulging in any kind of harassing.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am not going to give way to my hon. Friend, who has intervened many times already. I have been asked to speak very briefly.
It is worth looking at what this amendment is, and it is worth considering the question put by the police officer to the lady. The police officer asked her, “Are you praying?” In other words, there was nothing she was obviously doing that was harassment or in any way objectionable. The police officer had to actually go into her mind—she was just standing there; I do not think it is even clear that she was kneeling—and that is surely what is dangerous about the measure.
In speaking to this Chamber, I am going far beyond what that lady was doing. Of course I am not indulging in any objectionable behaviour by expressing my thoughts. I am not harassing anybody, but everybody in this Chamber in a sense is being forced to listen to me, and I have spent 39 years no doubt irritating people and even boring them. They cannot shut their ears, but this lady was not actually saying anything, and the policeman had to go up to her and ask what she was doing. If we are going to have a law—a criminal law—it has to be capable of being effective.
The reason George Orwell’s novel “1984” resonates so much with all of us is that the state was trying to regulate not just people’s actions but what goes on in their minds. That is why, ever since that novel was written, people have felt that probably the most advanced form of totalitarianism is one where the state is trying to regulate not simply people’s behaviour, but their minds. What the debate is about is that those who oppose my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) are determined to stop anybody indulging in any kind of protest, if it could be deemed to be some sort of protest, even if it is entirely silent.
The whole point of the Public Order Bill, as I understand it—this is why I support it—is that it does not outlaw peaceful protest. What the Government are addressing is people making that protest who are deliberately trying to obstruct the rights of other citizens by blocking roads or whatever. That is the point of the Bill. It has now been hijacked by people who want to stop completely silent peaceful protest.
The case of Livia Tossici-Bolt has not yet been mentioned. In the past few days she was told by council officers in Bournemouth that she would be fined simply for holding up a sign saying, “Here to talk if you want” inside a buffer zone. She was not holding up a sign with any graphic images, and she was not trying to intimidate anybody; she was simply saying, “Please, if you want to talk, I am here if you want any advice. This is a very difficult day for you.” For that she was stopped by the police. In other words, that lady was told that she could not offer other women who might, in some circumstances, be coerced into attending an abortion clinic, or who felt that they lacked the resources to complete a pregnancy, the opportunity to talk if they wanted to do so.
We must not criminalise such peaceful activity. Where are we going? Where will this stop? I believe—this is how I will conclude; I think that this is the shortest speech—that this is an entirely worthwhile, harmless, moderate amendment, and I hope that Members will support it.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I remain of the view that the Bill is draconian and anti-democratic, and represents a frightening lurch towards authoritarianism. Whether or not Members agree with me, most of us will accept that the concept of what constitutes serious disruption is central to the sweeping liberty-curtailing powers and offences that it contains.
The matter of protest banning orders rests on that definition, and the peaceful and often innocent conduct that the police would seemingly be able to criminalise as a result is breath-taking in its range. The Bill says that those orders can apply to people without a conviction—the Minister explained the Government amendment earlier—if someone has carried out activities or contributed to the carrying-out of activities by any other person related to a protest
“that resulted in, or were likely to result in, serious disruption”,
among a range of other scenarios, on two or more occasions. Justice has stated:
“Given the extent of the powers contained within the Bill, it is essential that any definition should be placed at such a threshold as to minimise the possibility for abuse.”
I agree. The term “serious disruption” should be defined. Despite requests even from senior police officers for clarity in the Bill’s early stages, the Government had to be dragged to this point today. Looking at the Government’s vast and vague amendment on this issue, the reasons for not defining the term in the first place are clear. It would appear that their intention was always to set the bar at a frighteningly low level—and the bar could not be lower.
Serious disruption is “more than a minor” hindrance. That is a paradox if ever there was one. Apart from being dangerously vague, “more than a minor” hindrance is not serious disruption by any stretch of the imagination. More than a minor hindrance, as suggested by the Government, is having to cross to the other side of the road because someone is protesting on the pavement. It is a Deliveroo takeaway arriving 15 minutes later than someone would like. Those things might be annoying, but they are not serious disruption and they certainly do not warrant arrest.
I want to set this in context, as the Lords have attempted to do. The comparison in English common law is the definition of civil nuisance, which involves “substantial interference”. That is a very high bar, which has been defined by decades of case law on the matter. It is a world away from the low threshold that the Government propose in this measure.
I should make it clear that on the issue of blocking emergency vehicles—the Minister might try to cite that as a reason for the Government’s vague and dangerous amendment—of course that should be an offence, but it already is. The Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act 2006 contains two offences. First, the Act makes it an offence to obstruct or hinder certain emergency workers who are responding to emergency circumstances. Secondly, it makes it an offence to hinder or obstruct those who are assisting emergency workers responding to emergency circumstances. The Lords amendment provides a much more sensible definition of serious disruption. It states that serious disruption
“means causing significant harm to persons, organisations or the life of the community, in particular, where…it may result in significant delay to the delivery of a time-sensitive product…or…it may result in a prolonged disruption of access to any essential goods or any essential services”.
That complements “significant delay” in the delivery of goods and “prolonged disruption” of access to services, as set out in the Public Order Act 1986, as well as measures in the Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act.
On stop and search, which colleagues have already mentioned, of course the police must have the ability, sometimes, to stop and search when people are reasonably suspected of various crimes. However, the danger of abuse lies in the threshold of “reasonable suspicion” being low or, worse, as in the case of this Bill, non-existent.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
Thank you for selecting the amendments to Lords amendment 5, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would first like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) for bringing his amendments forward. He has put his finger on a couple of important principles about how we do law in this country and how we legislate in this House.
I should start by saying that this debate is absolutely not about abortion. My hon. Friend’s amendments also do not change the legislation regarding buffer zones. As has been said, that debate has happened in this House; they are in place. In fact, the powers providing for buffer zones around abortion clinics already exist. That point was made very well, I may say, by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq). She is not in her place, but she highlighted how, where buffer zones have been challenged, their presence has been upheld and people protesting within them have been moved on. They are both legal and, it would appear from her description, effective for their purpose.
We therefore have not only laws that provide for buffer zones around abortion clinics but some evidence of what those mean in practice. We have the evidence that there are laws that allow for people to be moved on. However, we also have something rather more disturbing: evidence of the way that law is being interpreted.
I would like to make two points about the law and how we approach it. As a Member coming to this House tasked with understanding the issues that we debate—a wide range of issues on all sorts of things—one of the first questions I ask myself, and often one of the first questions asked of me, is, “What evidence is there of the need for this?” I think that that question of necessity and proportionality is an important one, particularly in relation to amendment (b) to Lords amendment 5 tabled by my hon. Friend, which seeks a pause in the legislation until we have established such a need.
Certainly, before any kind of national provision is introduced, it is reasonable to ask, “What is the necessity, and is this proportional?” In 2018, it was established that that necessity was not there, so I have to ask myself how that has changed and why the measure is felt to be necessary now. Is there a material difference? I must confess that I am struggling to understand the objection to providing or securing that evidence to have the confidence that we are acting proportionally and out of necessity.
My second point on my hon. Friend’s amendments is about, effectively, the carve-out or provision for silent prayer. There is no support in this place, nor has there been throughout the passage of the Bill, for any intimidation or harassment of women seeking the services of an abortion clinic. That is an important point, because that is not what the amendments seek to achieve and we already have laws to deal with that.
We have evidence of an arrest that took place for the act of silent prayer. Amendment (a) seeks to make it clear that that is an inappropriate interpretation of our laws.
Stella Creasy
That seems to be the nub of the challenge. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although he does not feel that silent prayer would intimidate him, plenty of users of the service feel that it is intimidating, so it is right that it is in scope?
Robin Millar
The hon. Member has clearly read my notes, because I am coming to that exact point. In response to her earlier comments, I also say that I do not seek to put myself in the place of a woman who is seeking the services of an abortion clinic. I respect the fact that that is an incredibly difficult moment—a sensitive and vital moment—and I cannot seek to understand that from my lived experience, as she said.
Equally, however, as the hon. Member said, it is the presence of the person in that place that is objectionable, because we cannot know what silent prayer is. Hon. Members may well be silently praying that I wrap up my remarks so that we can move to the votes; I have no way of knowing. Prayer is not necessarily marked by a folding of hands, a closing of eyes, a bowing of the head or a thumbing of a rosary, and it is not necessarily marked by kneeling.
Indeed, the evidence from the abortion clinic with a buffer zone around it where the arrest took place is that the person was standing. When challenged, she was arrested on the basis that she was praying silently. There were no placards or graphic images, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton, and there was no shouting—there was nothing. That is the point of concern, because what is the basis for the arrest if it is just the presence of someone who is perhaps in the habit of praying silently?
The importance of the issue comes down to three things: thoughts, words and deeds. If our freedom to think, our freedom to speak and our freedom to act exist on a continuum, where we put the marker of where a freedom ends is a statement about our society. Do we place that marker just beyond the freedom to speak, effectively saying that we must watch our speech and what we say? I think we have already established through the laws of the land that we do that, because we do not allow people to speak freely without consideration.
What we have seen, however, through the implementation of existing local laws that the Bill seeks to make national, is an interpretation that says that we do not have freedom of thought. That is the point of my contribution and of the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South. Specifically, I support them because first, they are a helpful and sadly necessary clarification that we in this country enjoy freedom of thought and the freedom to practise silent prayer; and secondly, when we make laws, it is incumbent on us to pause to test the need for further legislation before introducing unnecessary legislation.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I rise to speak on Lords amendments 1, 5, 6 and 20, beginning with the definition of “serious disruption”.
Before I go into the detail, let me mention the publication in 2021 of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary’s now widely debated report looking at protests and how the police response was working. Matt Parr, Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary, called for a “modest reset” of the balance between police powers and the right to protest in order to respond to the changing nature of the protests we were seeing, which were sometimes dangerous; people were taking more risks. The suggestions included far more measures that were non-legislative than legislative, such as better training for police, better understanding of the law and a more sophisticated response to protests. What has followed has been a series of escalations of more and more unnecessary legislation that the police have not asked for and that will not have an impact on the actual challenge.
We have gathered to debate public order legislation many times in this House, and while there have been numerous Ministers, I have been here every single time. For our part, we suggested a modest reset of the laws, as suggested by Her Majesty’s inspectorate, with amendments making injunctions easier for local organisations to apply for and with stronger punishment for obstructing the highway. Our sensible amendments were rejected by the Government in favour of this raft of legislation, which now finds itself in ping-pong, because the House of Lords is quite rightly saying that these proposals are not necessary.
What do the Government think their amendments to the Lords amendments will actually deliver? Their impact assessment is quite clear. Let us look, for example, at the new offence of locking on, which is going to change everything, we are told. Let me quote:
“the number of additional full custody years”—
the number of prison years that will result from this new offence—
“lies within the range of zero to one”.
That is the impact this Bill will have: zero to one years of custodial sentences.
What about the serious disruption prevention orders we are debating today? How many custodial cases will they amount to? The answer is three to five. Well, that is all worth it then! The rights to be taken away, as Conservative and Opposition Members have so eloquently described, will be for three to five cases with custodial convictions a year.
The impact assessment is extraordinary.
Matt Parr of Her Majesty’s inspectorate clearly said that there was
“a wide variation in the number of specialist officers available for protest policing throughout England and Wales”,
and that
“Non-specialist officers receive limited training in protest policing.”
He made several recommendations about increased and better training. Have the Government listened to these sensible concerns? Not a bit. Their impact assessment states that the police will need seven minutes to understand this entire new Bill and to implement it fairly—seven minutes. The truth is that they do not listen to the police and they do not listen to what is actually needed; they just want a headline.
To pause for a minute, today we have all been appalled by the offences David Carrick was guilty of in the run-up to the murder of Sarah Everard, and these appalling sexual crimes and this epidemic of violence against women and girls needs a proper response, yet the Government are prioritising this legislation over a victims Bill.
Laws already exist to tackle protest that the police use every day. Criminal damage is an offence, as are conspiracy to cause damage, trespass, aggravated trespass, public nuisance, breach of the peace and obstruction of a highway—I could go on. In April 2019, 1,148 Extinction Rebellion activists were arrested and more than 900 were charged. In October 2019, 1,800 protesters were arrested. Many have been fined, and many have gone to prison. The impact assessment for this Bill suggests a few hundred arrests; the police are already making thousands. The powers are there for the police to use.
Turning to the definition of “serious disruption”, we must be clear about the history. The Opposition asked for a definition of “serious disruption” long ago in debates on what is now the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The Government said no, but then agreed to a definition in the Lords. It was not a very good one, and we tried to amend it. The police have asked us for greater clarity on the definition of “serious disruption” because the Government have drafted such poor legislation that it is important for them to interpret how and when they should and should not intervene. But the new definition appears to include as serious disruption situations such as if I have to step aside on a pavement to avoid a protestor. The police do not want to diminish people’s rights through this definition—they have said that time and again, and privately they think the Government are getting this wrong.
Sir Charles Walker
Does the shadow Minister agree that this provision is extraordinary, because there is often disruption around the Houses of Parliament when there is a protest and people march around Parliament Square and up to Trafalgar Square? That is a disruption, and is more than a minor disruption, but it is the type of disruption that most people in a free and democratic society can live with.
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman has made many good points already this afternoon, and I entirely agree;
“more than a minor degree”
is way too low a bar to allow these interventions. Many Members and many watching the debate would have fallen foul of this law.
The amendment is drawn so widely that it is almost meaningless. As the hon. Gentleman said, when there are protests on Whitehall, near Parliament Square, there can be large crowds, and banners and speeches, so they are noisy. In 1 Parliament Street, where my office is, we have to shut the windows, which is irritating, but we are not hindered to the extent that we expect police interference. There are so many scenarios that could come under the scope of this definition that would render it ludicrous.
If I chain myself to a tree to protest at a new road and a couple of people are unable to cross a road to go to the supermarket, is that more than a minor disruption, or not? We have to remember that serious disruption, however it is defined—and I argue that here it is defined without any legal certainty—does not have to happen for offences under the Bill to be committed. This sloppiness and breadth of drafting is unacceptable, and the police do not want it. They just want clarity, and this will not bring clarity.
Turning to suspicionless stop and search, the Government have tabled a motion to disagree with Lords amendment 6. The motion would reinsert wide-ranging powers for the police to stop and search anyone in the vicinity of a protest, for example shoppers passing a protest against a library closure, tourists walking through Parliament Square, or civil servants walking to their office. If there is a large crowd in Parliament Square and a tourist gets caught up in it, they could be stopped; they could have no idea what is going on, and would be an offence to resist.
Stop and search is disproportionately used against black people in this country. Do Members on the Government Benches really want to pass legislation for powers that risk further damaging the relationship between the police and our communities? Instead of actually targeting serious gun crime, serious knife crime or terrorism, the Government are choosing to focus on stopping and searching people who may or may not be taking part in a protest. That is not proportionate.
Former police officers have warned that these powers risk further diminishing trust in public institutions. That will put the police in a difficult position, and it risks undermining the notion of policing by consent. Members of the other place were right to remove the powers to stop and search without suspicion, and the Government are wrong to put them back in.
We agree with what the Government have done with regard to the journalists clause and amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 17. The right to protest is a hard-won democratic freedom that many have fought for in our history, and many are fighting for it in other parts of the world. A free press is another hallmark of our democratic society. The amendment will not prevent the police from responding to someone who is causing trouble and happens to be a journalist, but, crucially, it will allow reporters to observe and report to the wider public about the happenings of a protest. Considering the scope, breadth and low bar of most of the powers in the Bill, reporting on their potential misuse or wrong application is even more important. That is a power that must be protected, so we welcome the Government’s amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 17.
We are fundamentally against the principle of serious disruption prevention orders. We do not agree with them on conviction and we certainly do not agree with them not on conviction. The Government have tabled a motion to disagree with Lords amendment 20 and tabled their own amendment in lieu. That reinstates but limits the ability to apply an SDPO to someone without a protest-related conviction. We welcome the fact that the Government have accepted that their initial draft was overreaching and unnecessary. However, we do not support the five-year conviction compromise that they suggest. Problems remain, in that police could still apply for a SDPO to prevent a person from carrying out activities that are merely likely to result in serious disruption to two or more individuals or an organisation. The Met police commissioner said that
“policing is not asking for new powers to constrain protests”,
but SDPOs on conviction unfortunately remain in the Bill. An SDPO treats a peaceful protestor like the Government treat terrorists. Does the Minister really want to treat peaceful protestors, however annoying they may be, as serious criminals?
On buffer zones, the Opposition do not agree with amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5. It is important to remember that we have already voted on this issue in this place. We voted to introduce buffer zones and in the other place the Conservative peer Baroness Sugg did a very good job of tidying up the Bill. We have already voted in both Houses to introduce what we now call safe access zones. Lords amendment 5 is really important, creating a 150-metre safe access zone around abortion clinics to stop the intimidation and harassment of women and healthcare professionals. The proposed changes to the amendment would risk preventing people from getting the medical support they need.
Robin Millar
Does the hon. Lady accept that the evidence from the abortion buffer zones that exist at present is that people are being arrested for silent prayer? That is a fact. If she does, does she then accept that amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5 is necessary to provide a provision for silent prayer?
Sarah Jones
I do not agree with that interpretation at all. We have public space protection orders around some abortion clinics now, and we are broadening that out. That has been voted for twice, in this House and in the other place. I believe very firmly that the changes proposed in amendment (a) would risk preventing people from getting the medical support they need. Let me explain why.
I am a person of faith. I have also walked into an abortion clinic. I pray, but I also know how intimidating it is to walk past people silently standing there with signs trying to communicate, trying to pray, trying to persuade women to change their mind. It is a balance that we strike in this place between a woman’s right to privacy and healthcare and everybody’s right to go about their business and do what they choose. This place has already struck that balance.
I will explain why I also believe the proposal would not work. It goes way beyond silent prayer. Amendment (a) states:
“No offence is committed under subsection (1) by a person engaged in consensual communication”.
What is “consensual communication”? How on earth can we define it? Members have said women should not be harassed. Everybody agrees with that, but one person’s consensual communication is another person’s harassment. We have taken some legal advice on the amendment. The Government, when considering whether to support it, should look at the wider implications it might have.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Just to make the obvious point, the whole purpose of the buffer zones legislation is to create an exclusion zone around abortion clinics so that people with views they want to express about the subject of abortion clinics will not be in contact with people going to use those services. Amendment (a) would drive a coach and horses through that whole process. The way it is worded would mean that people would be protected from accusations of harassment, because their actions
“shall not…be taken to be…harassment”
whatever they may actually be doing, so long as they can call it silent prayer. That drives a coach and horses through what the House of Lords compromised on and what the House of Commons originally agreed to vote for and approve.
Sarah Jones
The hon. Member is completely right. The amendment also risks driving a coach and horses through all the protests legislation. If I am standing outside Parliament protesting and being annoying and loud, the police may want to intervene, but I might say, “Actually, I’m silently praying. Are you going to tell me I’m not?” How far does the amendment ride roughshod over all our definitions of protest? That is a question that the hon. Members who support it have not considered.
Nick Fletcher
What the hon. Lady just said is completely and utterly wrong—the chuntering on the Government Benches proves that. We are banning people from praying—silently—in a Christian country. Can we let that sink in? This is ridiculous. I want all colleagues on the Government Benches to think about this: within a 150-metre zone of a clinic, people will not be allowed to silently pray. Regardless of the reasons behind that, we need to think carefully about what we are doing.
Sarah Jones
I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have voted in this House and the other place for the safe access zones. As someone who prays, I understand why we need to introduce that legislation. However, the amendment mentions not just silent prayer but “consensual communication”. How on earth do we define consensual communication? There is no definition.
Stella Creasy
We must be clear that nobody is banning praying. We are saying that there is a time and a place to do it appropriately, which balances with people’s human rights. There has been some concern that, somehow, the buffer zones will take up police resources. Does my hon. Friend agree that, actually, amending the buffer zone legislation—as the amendment intends—would mean that more police resource would be needed, because it would become so unclear what was and what was not harassment, even when women repeatedly say that praying in their face is not acceptable?
Sarah Jones
I completely agree. Having talked to the police for nearly three years in this role, I know that they want clarity. The amendment provides not clarity but unbelievable confusion, whereas a 150-metre zone provides clarity, and that is what the police want.
The Bill remains an affront to our rights. The Government’s own impact assessment shows that it will not have much effect. It is our job as parliamentarians to come up with laws that solve problems and really work. The Bill does not do that, so the Opposition will vote against the Government tonight. We agree with the Lords, and I urge every Member to look to their conscience and do the same.
Chris Philp
As always, it is a great pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones). She has faced a number of Policing Ministers in her time, and I hope she faces many more during what I hope will be a very long tenure as shadow Minister.
We have heard some extremely thoughtful and well-considered contributions from both sides of the House on quite profound issues, touching as they do on conscience, free speech and a woman’s right to choose in relation to an abortion, as well as slightly more prosaic questions on policing protests. The objective of the Bill is to better balance the rights of individuals to protest—which this Government respect—with the rights of individuals to go about their daily lives without suffering from disruption. Those include the rights of parents to get their children to school, of people to get to hospital for vital treatment and of people to go to work without having their way impeded.
We have seen so many protests impeding the rights of the law-abiding majority, particularly in the latter half of 2022. There were 10-mile tailbacks on the M25. People glued themselves to roads in London and it took a long time to remove them. In December, we saw protesters walking slowly down streets, deliberately trying to cause as much disruption as possible—not so much exercising the right to protest as seeking to make a point by deliberately inconveniencing their fellow citizens. That is not something that this Government support, which is one reason why we are now legislating. The Metropolitan police have confirmed that between October and December last year they spent 13,600 officer shifts policing such protests, at a cost of nearly £10 million. That is time and money that would be much better spent elsewhere.
Sir Julian Lewis
Will the Minister confirm something for the sake of clarity? In the past, major peaceful demonstrations such as anti-nuclear demonstrations have blocked roads, but it was done with the permission of the police. That would continue, would it not?
Chris Philp
Yes, it would. My right hon. Friend pre-empts my next point, which I think an Opposition Member raised earlier. Where a protest has been authorised and licensed in advance by the police, of course these provisions will not be engaged. Protests such as the Iraq war protests aimed at the former Labour Government would, of course, be licensed. Protests against this Government would no doubt be licensed as well and could properly be held.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who I see is back in his place, made a point about whether the Bill could be used to disrupt strike action. I draw his attention and that of the House to the Bill’s original clauses 6 and 7, which as a result of the Lords amendments have been renumbered as clauses 7 and 8. Subsection (2)(b) of each clause makes it clear that it will be a defence to offences under the Bill that the act in question was undertaken
“in…furtherance of a trade dispute”,
so trade union protests and anything to do with strikes are exempted from the provisions of the Bill.
I think that the definition we have set out is reasonable. The police have asked for it, the former Deputy President of the Supreme Court supports it, it backs up the case law and I strongly commend it to the House.
Lords amendments 2, 3 and 4 deal with tunnelling. They are clarificatory amendments, making it clear that the offence of causing serious disruption by being present in a tunnel, as defined by clause 4, is committed only if the tunnel has been created for the purposes of a protest. Lords amendments 10 and 16 relate to some clarifications involving the British Transport Police which we think are important. Lords amendments 6,7, 8, 9 and 36 pertain to so-called suspicionless stop and search.
Sir John Hayes
Before my hon. Friend moves on to this subject, will he give way?
Chris Philp
In just a moment.
As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) correctly said in an intervention, these so-called suspicionless stop and searches can only take place in the absence of personal suspicion, when an officer of the rank of inspector or above believes, or has reason to believe, that in the next 24 hours a number of offences may be committed in the locality. That reasonable belief is required before any suspicionless stop and search can take place, and even then it is time-bound to a period of 24 hours. We think that that is proportionate. We have heard some views from the police and, in particular, from the His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which has said: “On balance, our view is that, with appropriate guidance and robust and effective safeguards, the proposed stop and search powers would have the potential to improve police efficiency and effectiveness in preventing disruption and making the public safe.” So this is something that HMIC has supported.
Stuart C. McDonald
I think we all accept that suspicionless stop and search can be triggered quite rightly, for example if there is a danger of terrorism, but the Bill now allows it to take place when, for instance, there could be a danger that someone somewhere might commit a public nuisance or lock themselves to a fence. That could lead to hundreds or even thousands of suspicionless searches, which is surely disproportionate.
Chris Philp
I do not accept that. When there is a reasonable suspicion that in the next 24 hours offences may be committed which may themselves have a profoundly disruptive effect on members of the public, it is reasonable to prevent that. Let me point the hon. Gentleman to the example of the protests on the M25 last November, when a 10-mile tailback was caused. I suggest that preventing that would be a reasonable thing to do.
Lords amendment 17 deals with the question of journalists. As I have said previously, although the law as it stands does protect journalists—in fact, an apology rapidly followed the arrest of the journalist in Hertfordshire —the Government accept that clarification and reaffirmation of journalistic freedom is important, so we accept the spirit and the principle of the amendment. We have improved the wording slightly in our amendment in lieu, but we accept that journalists need special protection.
Lords amendments 18, 19 and 20 deal with serious disruption prevention orders. There has been some confusion over this, on both sides of the House, so I will reiterate the point for the purpose of complete clarity. The Government have accepted the point made in the Lords that a conviction is required before a serious disruption prevention order can be made. That is a significant concession. However, we do not accept Lords amendment 20, because clause 20—as formerly numbered —simply allows for an application to be made at a time after conviction, but a conviction must previously have taken place. We have therefore tabled an amendment in lieu.
I think it important to emphasise that there will be a free vote on buffer zones, at least on the Government side, because it concerns an issue of conscience, namely abortion. There is no Government position on this matter, and Members will vote according to their consciences. We have heard Members on both sides of the House speak about this issue passionately and with conviction.
Sir John Hayes
I hear what the Minister says about that, and he has heard the strong opinions expressed from this side of the Chamber in favour of the freedom to pray silently. Speaking personally and for the guidance of the House, will he tell us whether he will be supporting the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), which allows free and silent prayer?
Chris Philp
My right hon. Friend is putting me on the spot a little bit. I would like to reiterate that the Government are neutral on this position. It is a free vote and there is no Government position, and in my capacity as a Government Minister I do not have a view. Obviously, as a Member of Parliament, I will be voting as an individual on this question. I do think, speaking personally, that women should be free to use these services without intimidation or harassment, which is why I voted for the amendment from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) when it was first tabled, but I do not think the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South undermines that, particularly given the words in proposed subsection (3B), which say that prayer
“shall not, without more, be taken to”
influence a person’s decision. So, personally, I will vote for that, but I emphasise again that the Government do not have a position and this is a free vote. We have heard some extremely thoughtful, well-considered, well-argued and sincerely held views on both sides, and Members will no doubt make up their own minds. up.
Stella Creasy
I respect the fact that the Minister has his own personal opinion. For the avoidance of doubt, can he confirm to the Chamber that this legislation, as amended in the Lords, is compliant with the European convention on human rights and that it does not criminalise praying but sets out boundaries for where it should occur?
Chris Philp
I think we will ultimately have to defer to the Attorney General, but my understanding is that the legislation, as amended by the Lords and if amended by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South’s amendment, would in both cases be compliant with the European convention on human rights. Indeed, it is our opinion that the entire Bill is consistent with the European convention on human rights.
I think I have probably spoken for long enough—[Interruption.] Did someone say, “Hear, hear”? This Bill strikes the right balance between protecting the right to protest and making sure that our constituents can go about their day-to-day business without unreasonable hindrance, that parents can get their children to school, that patients can get to hospitals and that people can get to their place of work. That is the right balance, and I commend the Government amendments to the House.
Question put, That amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5 be made.
Energy
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
I beg to move,
That the Alternative Fuel Payment Pass-through Requirement (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2023, dated 19 February 2023, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 February, be approved.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
With this we shall take the following motion:
That the Non-Domestic Alternative Fuel Payment Pass-through Requirement and Amendment Regulations 2023, dated 22 February 2023, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 February, be approved.
Amanda Solloway
The instruments were laid between 11 January and 23 February 2023, and their purpose is to ensure that benefits from the alternative fuel payment, both domestic and non-domestic, are passed through to consumers. Throughout this winter, the Government have delivered critical support to households, businesses and other non-domestic consumers in response to the unprecedented rise in energy prices. The Government brought forward emergency legislation on energy support, paving the way for this support package to be delivered rapidly across the entire United Kingdom.
The alternative fuel payments scheme provides support to households, organisations and businesses that do not use mains gas and use alternative fuels such as heating oil. Eligible domestic consumers using alternative fuels will receive a one-off fixed payment of £200. Non-domestic consumers will receive £150.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Can the Minister tell us how many households are still waiting to access the £200 payment?
Amanda Solloway
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. With his permission, I will get back to him with the answer.
The pass-through requirement regulations are an important part of the support package and of ensuring that support reaches those who need it. The alternative fuel payment and non-domestic alternative fuel payment pass-through schemes set out in the regulations take the same approach as other energy schemes, particularly the energy bills support scheme and the energy bill relief scheme. They make it mandatory for intermediaries to pass the financial benefit of the schemes through to end users, which is necessary because that benefit is being delivered through electricity suppliers. In some cases, a supplier will have a contract with an intermediary such as a landlord or a heat network rather than with the end user, so we need to ensure that the support that it provides to the intermediary is passed on to the end user in a fair way.
Let me clarify what I mean by “end user”. In the case of both the alternative fuel payment and the non-domestic alternative fuel payment, an end user is an individual who consumes energy and pays for its usage through an intermediary such as a landlord. We are talking about tenants of different types—they could be domestic tenants, businesses or any kind of organisation.
Like other energy schemes, the schemes set out in the regulations require that support be passed on in a “just and reasonable” way. The regulations have been drafted in that way to account for the many kinds of relationship between an intermediary and an end user. If we used a narrow definition of “just and reasonable”, we could run the risk of inadvertently excluding some intermediaries from the pass-through requirements.
The regulations also accommodate scenarios in which there are multiple end users to whom intermediaries pass on support. They make it clear when and how intermediaries should communicate with end users regarding the benefit that is being passed on.
Our approach to enforcement is consistent with the approach taken in other energy schemes, particularly the energy bills support scheme in Great Britain. If an intermediary does not pass on the benefit to a user who is entitled to it, that user will be able to pursue recovery of the benefit debt through civil proceedings. Should a court rule in the end user’s favour, the end user will be entitled to the payment plus interest at 2% above the Bank of England base rate.
The Government have published guidance on gov.uk to ensure that the requirements are clear to all parties. If necessary, there are also template letters that tenants can use to contact their landlords if they are concerned about their energy bills. The Government are working with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that the pass-through regulations work for everybody in scope, including vulnerable people and vulnerable groups.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is apparent from my constituency casework that there are people who have already received the payment through their energy company, but who probably should not have. I ask the Minister to confirm on the Floor of the House what she has told me in correspondence:
“Government will not require customers to repay an Alternative Fuel Payment which they have received, even if they use electricity to heat their homes.”
Amanda Solloway
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I am very new in post, so I will check that point before I respond, if I may.
The regulations are vital to ensuring that support reaches the people it is designed to help. They are essential to the effectiveness of the alternative fuel payment in GB and the non-domestic alternative fuel payment across the United Kingdom. They will ensure that intermediaries pass on the support to those who really need it: the households and non-domestic energy customers most vulnerable to high energy costs. With all those important reasons in mind, I commend the regulations to the House.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
As the Minister has said, these statutory instruments deal with alternative fuel payments within the general scope of the domestic energy price guarantee scheme and the non-domestic energy bills support schemes. They deal specifically with circumstances in which the customer does not hold a fuel account directly with the supplier but, either domestically or commercially, is able to secure assistance with energy costs by ensuring that the saving is passed through from the supplier to them. This applies to, for example, park home occupiers or, in business cases, end users such as those who run cafés and guest houses and are lessees of a landlord who pays the bills, and receives the rebate, in the first instance. There will be pass-through payments of £200 for domestic end users and £150 for non-domestic end users. It should be noted that in Northern Ireland alternative fuel payments have been combined with a main payment of £600.
These latest SIs represent what I hope is the end of a long line of provisions for various sub-categories of people for whom we seem to have been legislating for a very long time. However, we ought to note, at least in passing, that this has meant that schemes that were announced in the autumn and were supposed to run for six months are now in the last month of their operation, and some people who should have received support are still waiting for it six months after the scheme started. Lest there be any doubt about that, I can tell the House that in February the Government issued a press release headed “Households, businesses and organisations off the gas grid to receive energy bill support over the coming weeks”, which stated that:
“£200 payments for off grid households start today, while businesses off the grid are expected to receive £150 payments by 10 March”,
which is in three days’ time. I therefore think that the inquiry from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) about who had not yet received their payments is rather germane, given what the Government themselves said about the long delays in releasing the payments.
I appreciate that the support schemes have proved difficult to administer, and that there have been repeated instances of new sub-categories of people for whom separate secondary legislation has been necessary to secure the integrity of the schemes, but does the Minister really sit comfortably with the knowledge that a not inconsiderable number of customers, both domestic and non-domestic, did not receive help that was often desperately needed for virtually the whole passage of the scheme itself, and in some instances, as I have said, may not receive support until the middle of the month?
We will not be opposing the SIs. Indeed, we want to see them dispatched so that help, albeit late, can assuredly reach people, particularly those who are relying on pass-through arrangements for relief when they do not receive the up-front sums directly. We are discussing these SIs because—as far as I can see—of defects in the original pass-through SIs, which we have already debated, as reported to the Government by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Committee cited one particular defect in the Energy Bills Support Scheme and Alternative Fuel Payment Pass-through Requirement (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023, which failed to make it clear that support is to be delivered as a single rather than a monthly payment. That has been corrected in the Non-Domestic Alternative Fuel Payment Pass-through Requirement and Amendment Regulations 2023. However, the Committee reported on a second defect in the legislation which I think is potentially serious: namely, the fact that there are requirements in both pass-through SIs for the intermediary in the scheme to notify the end user within 30 days of the provision of the scheme benefit of how and when the pass-through will take place and what amount will be passed through, and convey the important information that the end user can recover amounts to which they are entitled but do not receive as a civil debt.
All the information about how the end user can expect a pass-through benefit should be contained in the information from the intermediary. The Committee noted that no sanction is attached to the provision to cover cases in which the intermediary fails to inform the end user in that way. It seems that the vital part of telling someone that they will receive the benefit or can sue the intermediary if they do not receive it is essentially a voluntary act for the intermediary to perform.
Yes, they should send the information, and yes, the legislation says that they should, but if they do not, nothing will happen to them, and unless the end user is aware of their entitlements, they might remain in complete ignorance of an expected payment. Thus, nothing will happen as far as a payment is concerned. This is in spite of requirements being placed in the main legislation, the Energy Prices Act 2022. Section 10(b) of that Act states that regulations may make provision
“for the payment of a specified amount, on an application made in accordance with the regulations by a person who is an end user of an intermediary, where the intermediary fails to comply with a requirement by virtue of subsection (9) to provide information to the person”.
It is therefore clear in the main legislation what the secondary legislation is intended to achieve.
The Government’s response to the information they received from the Committee on this defect was to decide not to amend their approach and effectively to ignore this provision in the Act. They say so in the explanatory notes to this SI, and it is worth putting the Government’s line of argument for ignoring the main legislation on record. The explanatory notes state:
“Section 19(10)(b) of the Energy Prices Act 2022 provides that pass-through regulations may require an intermediary who is in breach of requirements to provide information to pay a specified amount on application by the end user to a specified person. The Department decided that the incentive for end users to make such an application for payment would have been insufficient given the time and administrative burden involved in doing so. However it is still considered that there is merit in including notification requirements in the instrument. This is on the basis that many intermediaries would be likely to comply with the requirements notwithstanding the lack of an enforcement mechanism.”
Frankly, that is a rather laughable defence for not doing in the secondary legislation what the original Act said should be done.
Is the Minister comfortable with this state of affairs where the secondary legislation has written out a provision contained in the primary legislation and potentially makes the receipt of relief from bills much more capricious in the process? Does she consider that there is arguably a case for action against the Government by those deprived of the information to which they are entitled on the grounds of negligence in doing their own pass-through, which is to pass the requirements of primary legislation into secondary legislation in such a way that it reflects the primary provisions? Clearly these are not in themselves grounds for chucking these SIs out on a vote, but perhaps the Minister should consider, since she is clearly no stranger to SIs, correcting the defects of previous SIs, and consider whether there might be a case for a further correction of these SIs to place the primary and secondary legislation on a watertight footing.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is quite incredible that we are debating these SIs in the main Chamber today. They should never have been on the Floor of the House. This is proof that, apart from othering asylum seekers, this zombie Government are just padding out what would otherwise be normal Government time. It is also ridiculous that, six months down the line from announcing the energy support scheme, so many people are unfortunately still waiting for the moneys they are due. Can the Minister confirm whether these regulations and the applications being opened up for the alternative payment will now resolve the park home issue as has been long promised? For clarity, will these regulations resolve that issue?
It would be good to know how many people are still waiting on their moneys. Also, why do so many people have to jump through hoops and apply for alternative fuel support? Why do people in areas such as the highlands and islands, where there are many more people off the gas grid than there are in Northern Ireland, have to apply when every household in Northern Ireland gets the £200 payment anyway? It is clear that people in the highlands and islands of Scotland have fallen through the cracks, and the Government should look at this again, especially if they are going to repeat the scheme in future.
The first SI is about the pass-through of payments from the likes of commercial landlords. Does the Minister know how many payments are estimated to have been made to landlords that still have not been passed on? As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) said, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments confirmed that the Government expect information to be provided to them from these commercial landlords, except that there is no enforcement mechanism. This is a defective SI, yet despite that, the Government have chosen to bring it back to the Floor of the House in the main Chamber and do nothing about support or about changing the defects reported by the Joint Committee. Have the Government considered any such mechanism to allow the enforcement of information reporting? If not, and if there is no way to enforce it, how can they assess whether this support, this taxpayers’ money, is going to those who need it, rather than being held up by intermediaries? This money should be passed on to the people to whom it is rightfully due.
The truth is that there is no incentive for commercial landlords to report, even those who are doing the right thing in passing on the money, because it is just time-wasting for them. Why should they see any merit in reporting what they have done? That means that, overall, the Government will not be able to assess the scheme’s success in getting the money to those to whom it is due.
The key question is, why is the onus being put on individuals to pursue any moneys they are owed as a civil debt? In reality, how many people know they can go to court to claim the £200 they perhaps did not receive? Again, that is beyond most people’s knowledge and ken.
Looking forward, as we come to the end of the initial energy price guarantee scheme, and given that the Government have borrowed a lot less money than they thought they would, they really must look at reducing bills. Even holding bills at £2,500, on average, is not enough because it would keep 6.5 million households in fuel poverty. We are calling for a £500 reduction. It is also critical that they review the support for small businesses, which will receive an estimated £200 on average. That is a drop in the ocean compared with their high energy bills. The Government must look at that as we come to the new financial year.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I was not planning to speak in this short debate, so I will be brief.
We have waited a long time for this statutory instrument. During that time, many very vulnerable people have been suffering. I acknowledge that, from the Government’s broad perspective, it is a challenge to get this legislation right, but my concern, which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister can allay, is that the punishment for landlords—I am thinking in particular of some rogue park home site owners—who do not pass on the money is, I sense, puny rather than punitive. They will just laugh at the punishment. I hope I am wrong, but I ask the Minister to take on board my concern.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I declare an interest, as my home is off grid. We are heated by an oil-based central heating system, and I have received the £200 alternative fuel payment from my energy company, Octopus Energy.
The Liberal Democrats support this scheme but, like others, we have very serious concerns about the way in which it has been constructed and implemented. I have liaised with the Minister through correspondence and at Business questions last week on the fact that a number of people whose homes are heated entirely by electricity should not, on my reading of the regulations, have been given the alternative fuel payment, but on the basis of the modelling used by the Department, they have been given it. Others in an identical situation will now have to make an application through the portal that went live yesterday. If the Government are to implement their own regulations, those applications will be refused. That will leave us in the manifestly unfair situation whereby, for two households in exactly the same situation, one will be in receipt of the £200 payment and the other will not. The Minister has already told me in correspondence that there are no plans to claw back payments that have been made. That being the case, what will be the remedy for those whose application through the portal is refused?
I look at the information that has been put into the public domain on the way in which tokens for people on prepayment meters can be paid out, and I look at the information that has been given to me by my own energy company, and they both say that the tokens can be redeemed through PayPoint. That is true, but they can also be obtained through the Post Office. Only a handful of the outer islands in my constituency have access to PayPoint, but people can go to their local post office. The information going to the end energy user should surely reflect that.
One business in Orkney brought to my attention today the fact that it will not, apparently, receive the payment because it changed its energy supplier at the start of the year. It will not get the payment from its new energy supplier or from its former one, which, again, appears to be a fundamental unfairness.
The issue relating to district heating schemes does not affect many communities, but it very much affects Lerwick, where Shetland Heat, Energy & Power provides a district heating scheme to many local households. It appears to us that they have been excluded from the scheme. Will the Minister explain to us, either now or in correspondence, why that should be the case?
The applications that are now having to be made by those who have not received their payment automatically are to be done through the portal. So will the Minister tell us how long it will take for those people to be given a decision? In the event that they are unhappy with the decision made, what will be their appeal process? It is matter of record that there is a significant overlap between homes that are off grid and those that have poor or no internet access. A number of vulnerable elderly people just do not use internet services at all, but there appears only to be an online application process. Will the Minister explain to the House why no offline process—no paper-based process—is in place for that small number of people who remain highly vulnerable?
Finally, I turn to the issue of those who rely on solid fuel—peat, coal or logs—for their heating. It is now apparent that they will have to provide receipts. Those can go back to September, but someone who has been buying coal at their shop, perhaps in a small bag, every week since goodness knows when will not have kept their receipts. How are those people, who have incurred the expense, going to get access to this important payment? It is arbitrary to say that solid fuel bought only after September will be eligible for reimbursement. I know a lot of people who will buy solid fuel in the summer months because it is at its cheapest then. What will be done to ensure that those people, who are now being told that they should have been keeping the receipts from their weekly shopping since September, are not going to be excluded?
Will the Minister tell us how many payments have already been made? How many people will now have to make an application through the portal? How many does the Department estimate will remain off grid but will not receive a payment under this scheme?
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), because he raised a number of important points and concerns echoed by many of my constituents. Ceredigion is a mainland constituency that has one of the highest proportions of domestic households not connected to the mains gas grid—74% of properties are off grid there. Clearly, the scheme is very welcome and will offer a great deal of support for many of my constituents. However, the right hon. Gentleman drew upon a few concerns that I share and would like to bring to the Minister’s attention this evening, as I believe they warrant urgent attention.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, those who have not received the payments automatically are required to make an online application. I have already been contacted, since yesterday, by many constituents who have explained that although they are eligible and satisfy most of the criteria, their applications have been refused and they cannot proceed any further because they have not got evidence that they bought fuel after September 2022. Many of these people will have bought oil in August or July. I know and I am anticipating arguments that fuel was slightly cheaper in those months than it would have been during the winter months, and I do not deny that, but they were not to know at the time that they would be punished for buying in advance. They were not to know that if they bought in August, as they often do, they would be at a disadvantage under this scheme.
I cannot comprehend of a fair line of argument that the Government could produce to satisfy me that some of my constituents, who have been buying in the month of August for decades in some cases, should be punished when their neighbours, who perhaps were not able to buy in August—there were many difficulties at the time— will receive a £200 payment. I would be grateful if the Minister could satisfy the House that there will be some discretion for people who bought in August. Although the prices in August were cheaper than in the winter, they were still significantly higher than prices in 2021 or 2020. The prices in August 2022 were more than double those of August 2020. It is important that individuals are not punished by an arbitrary cut-off date for the online scheme.
If we need more arguments against the arbitrary cut-off date, it is obvious that those who have received the payment automatically may not have bought fuel after September 2022, but they will benefit from the £200 because they have a direct relationship with an electricity supplier. That is an unintended unfair consequence of the scheme. I support the scheme, but that is a hitch that needs to be addressed.
My other concern is that the postcode details of a number of off-grid homes in Ceredigion were not supplied to energy suppliers—for various reasons, mainly because they are new builds or new estates—so they did not receive the payments automatically. I am grateful to the Minister and the Department for clarifying that those households are eligible for the payments but that they will need to apply through the online portal. The potential problem is that because they have a direct relationship with an electricity supplier, they will have taken it for granted that they would receive the payments automatically. I am concerned that some people may not know that they need to make an application through the online portal. Could the Government initiate any steps, such as publicity campaigns, to make sure that everyone who needs to make an application knows that before the scheme concludes?
I echo the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) when he said that we need to look ahead to next winter. The Government would do well to do the work now to support off-grid homes in winter 2023-24.
Amanda Solloway
With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate.
I thank my hon. Friends and other Members for their valuable contributions tonight. I will send on some information about some of the figures that I am unable to give at the moment. The regulations are necessary to ensure that we implement the alternative fuel payment scheme, in Great Britain, and the non-domestic alternative fuel payment scheme by allowing support to reach those who need it, and I think we all agree with that. The schemes are already in place and are delivering support to organisations across the United Kingdom.
As we are all aware, the domestic alternative fuel payment scheme is delivering £200 to households that use alternative fuels such as heating oil, liquified petroleum gas, coal or biomass, helping some 2 million off-grid households to meet their energy costs this winter. The scheme particularly supports households in rural areas that are not connected to the gas grid. Support was doubled to £200 in the autumn statement to reflect the price rises facing people using alternative fuels in their houses. The vast majority of eligible households should have received the payment automatically via their electricity supplier in February.
The non-domestic alternative fuel payment is delivering £150 to non-domestic customers who use alternative fuels for heating, helping premises in Great Britain and Northern Ireland meet their energy costs this winter.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I want to pick up the point about park homes and site owners and ask the Minister to address that specific point in her closing remarks. There are concerns that site owners are not always passing on the benefit of this payment to the residents of park homes. I would like some reassurance that there are proper measures in place and penalties that will make a difference in ensuring that site owners pass the benefit of these payments on to residents.
Amanda Solloway
I will address that in a moment. As I was saying, the scheme supports a wide range of domestic and non-domestic customers, including businesses, schools, hospitals and churches that are not connected to the gas grid. It will also deliver a top-up payment to the highest users of kerosene heating oil. Most eligible non-domestic customers should receive their £150 payment automatically in March, and we continue to update and publicise our guidance on the gov.uk website to ensure that energy users and intermediaries understand their rights and obligations.
I turn now to a couple of other questions that have been raised—as I have said, if I do not address any of the questions that have been asked, I will write to hon. Members. One thing I can confirm is that the Government will not require customers to repay an alternative fuel payment that they have received, even if they use electricity to heat their house.
Thinking about how to ensure that energy users know how to make necessary claims, end users can recover claims to pass-through amounts as civil debts in the county courts, in the same way that other outstanding amounts owed to an individual can be claimed. However, for future pass-through requirements, we will be keeping ahead of that position and making sure that we review it on a constant basis. We have reflected on advice we have received regarding previous pass-through regulations and meaningfully engaged with stakeholders across the United Kingdom to promote and disseminate requirements for all the schemes. That includes working side by side with delivery partners such as utility regulators and energy suppliers, and key stakeholders including consumer ombudsman services.
We considered introducing sanctions on intermediaries if they failed to notify the end user of their rights. However, we decided that the incentive for end users to make an application for sanctions to be applied would be insufficient, given the time and the administrative burden involved in doing so. None the less, notification requirements were included in the statutory instruments, on the basis that many intermediaries are likely to comply with the requirements set out and that the published guidance clarifies the contents of this obligation. Furthermore, it was considered important to ensure consistency in approach across the pass-through regulations of all energy support schemes.
We will continue to seek views and feedback from those impacted by all these regulations, as well as from key delivery partners. I commend the regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Alternative Fuel Payment Pass-through Requirement (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2023, dated 19 February 2023, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 February, be approved.
Energy
Resolved,
That the Non-Domestic Alternative Fuel Payment Pass-through Requirement and Amendment Regulations 2023, dated 22 February 2023, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 February, be approved.—(Amanda Solloway.)
Business without Debate
Enrivonmental Audit Committee
Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to bring some positive news and, I hope, some reasonable asks to the Minister regarding Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust. May I first declare an interest as a practising psychiatrist? I do not work for the trust, but I think it important to bring the House’s attention to that point.
Over the past few years, we have had many debates in this place and many meetings with Ministers about Norfolk and Suffolk Foundation Trust. The good news is that in the last few days, the trust has been taken off special measures and is no longer rated “inadequate”. The tremendous effort of the board and the staff has paid off, and, as a result, we have seen in the latest Care Quality Commission report a considerable improvement in the quality of patient care.
The background is, as we know, that Norfolk and Suffolk Foundation Trust, which serves roughly 1.6 million people across Norfolk and Suffolk, and has about 87,000 patient contacts a year, has been in difficulties for a number of years. Over the past eight years, the trust has been rated “inadequate” four times, which I think probably places it not just as an outlier but as historically the worst-performing trust in the country for both physical and mental health.
A tremendous amount of work has needed to be put in to turn things around. I am optimistic that the new leadership team at the trust, the board and the staff have done the necessary work and that they will now continue that work to ensure that the people of Norfolk and Suffolk with mental ill health receive the improved care that they need.
In its most recent inspection, the CQC conducted an unannounced comprehensive inspection of two core services: child and adolescent mental health wards and community-based mental health wards. That inspection took place towards the end of last year. The CQC highlighted in its report, which was published on 24 February, a number of areas of improvement. It awarded NSFT an improved overall rating. It still requires improvement as a trust, but that is much better than being inadequate. The trust is now rated “requires improvement” rather than “inadequate” across all CQC domains, with the exception of the caring domain, in which the trust continues to be rated “good”. On individual services, 60% of those inspected are now rated “good”, and the trust no longer has a legal warning notice relating to concerns about the quality and safety of its patient care.
The CQC reported:
“The trust has moved at pace to make the necessary changes and significant improvements could be seen at all levels”.
It also described largely positive feedback from patients and service users, who said that they
“felt safe and well cared for...staff were supportive of their needs and friendly and approachable…staff were kind, they felt listened to…staff helped them when they needed it”
and that
“they were fully involved in their care”.
That is positive feedback from patients.
Key areas of good care highlighted by the CQC included the NSFT’s child and adolescent mental health ward, Dragonfly, which achieved a significantly improved overall rating of “good”; acute wards and community-based mental health services, which support working-age adults and achieved positive improvements in overall ratings; and the community-based mental health services for adults of working age, whose Bury St Edmunds pilot programme for dialectical behavioural therapy—a type of therapy generally provided to people with personality disorders—was recognised for outstanding practice.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He mentioned improvements on the acute wards, and I wanted to highlight that a recurring theme of my 13 years as an MP has been the lack of acute beds in the region, and how for so many people with real challenges beds have to be sourced out of region, which causes them a lot of stress and their families a great deal of anguish as well. I am aware that the trust has plans to address the deficit, but does he agree that this issue must be addressed as a high priority?
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has been a strong advocate for patients in his constituency receiving the care they need locally, which is something we all want for mental health patients. The trust has identified that out-of-area placements have been a problem, which is now being addressed at board level and throughout all services. Part of that work will be about improving and developing the mental health estate, improving the in-patient facilities available locally in Norfolk and Suffolk, and part of it will be about transforming the model of care, moving away from inappropriate in-patient admissions where people can be better cared for in the community. I will return to that subject, but my hon. Friend is right to say that the trust must continue to focus on reducing out-of-area placement, which is not good for patients or for their families, who want to support them while they are being cared for in hospital.
A key point that the CQC highlighted was strengthened leadership across the organisation, in individual services and particularly at board level. That was reflected in the trust now having a rate of mandatory training compliance among staff of at least 90%, and the trust rolling out accredited training in the prevention and management of violence and aggression, following a case in which restraint had been carried out incorrectly.
There has been significant change at board level, which I believe has been vital in driving the improvements in the quality of patient care. There has been a number of new appointments: trust chair Zoe Billingham, non-executive directors Dr Roger Hall and Sally Hardy, chief executive Stuart Richardson, deputy chief executive and chief people officer Cath Byford, chief medical officer Dr Alex Lewis, who is particularly impressive, and chief operating officer Thandie Matambanadzo have all brought significant experience and qualifications to the trust. It is by bringing in that external expertise that the trust has been able to understand what good looks like, and to begin to transform services and patient care.
The trust’s clinical and other governance processes have been strengthened. The number of board sub-committees has been reduced to streamline systems of assurance. External stakeholders have become more active participants through committee memberships. An evidence assurance group has been introduced to ensure that progress-monitoring data is accurate. The strengthening of a ward visit quality assurance team has also been important to driving up standards; this team carried out 100 comprehensive visits between March and October 2022. The introduction of a new digitised and simple method of completing clinical audits is another key element of driving up standards at the trust.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
My hon. Friend has great expertise in this area, so when he speaks his words carry weight. I welcome some of these improvements, but does he agree that, such is the extent of the failure over such a long period, a huge job for the new leadership is to regain the trust of families throughout Norfolk and Suffolk who have lost trust in the organisation, who think it is broken, and who believe a new organisation is the only way forward?
Dr Poulter
I agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour about the importance of rebuilding trust. The CQC highlighted a lot of the work done over the last year as good because the NSFT has rebuilt trust with both staff and the patients who use the service. The patient feedback, which was highlighted by the CQC, has been overwhelmingly positive in that time. That area has been addressed. It is an ongoing piece of work for the trust to focus on. It is also important, before we think about reorganisation—I understand why my hon. Friend has highlighted that—to understand what the consequences of that might be, and I will come to that in my later remarks. My view would be that we now need to get behind and support the new leadership team and recognise that for the first time in eight years we have a trust that is moving in the right direction and now needs to show consistent progress. Reorganisation would be a distraction from continuing that progress and could be detrimental to patient care. Whereas I might have agreed with my hon. Friend a year ago that reorganisation could be a viable option, at this stage, given the progress made and for a number of other reasons that I will come on to, I believe that the solution does not lie in breaking up the trust, but in supporting the board and staff to do the job that they have started and to get the trust not just to “requires improvement”, but to “good” and then to “outstanding”, which is what they would like to do.
The trust has recognised that it has needed to bring forward work to align its strategy with the plans in the broader health and social care system. One of the problems in the past was that the trust was often operating in isolation and not joining up the focus of its care with the work done by other healthcare partners. If we are talking about preventive care and upstream early intervention, a lot of the work going on between NSFT and primary care partners has meant that there is more focus on early intervention and preventing people becoming unwell, and hopefully therefore reducing inappropriate hospital admissions, and that is an important ongoing piece of work.
However, improvements still need to be made. A key area that has been highlighted for improvement by the Care Quality Commission and internally by those who work at the trust is that trust data is not as unified as it could be. While the trust has a large amount and range of data, it is not brought together effectively to focus on patient care and reduce risk in the way it needs to be. The effect is that struggling services are not always identified quickly enough to be provided with the necessary support, and I know that that will be a key focus over the next year to 18 months. Essential environmental improvements, for example on in-patient wards, do not always happen fast enough within the trust to address patient safety concerns. There is variation in the abilities and confidence of ward and team managers and middle management in clinical care groups, and managers do not always escalate concerns quickly enough to gain the necessary support. The strategic leadership team at the trust has recognised that and is now focusing in particular on ensuring that quality improvement is embedded in everything that everyone at the trust does so that it becomes everyday business, rather than an aspect of clinical audit, as may have been the case in the past.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this debate to the House. I think we should give credit where credit is due, and it is positive that we now have some green shoots at the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust moving forward, but my concern is that those should be sustainable green shoots and that this is not a yo-yo where the trust goes back into special measures. It should be on a sustainable footing going forward. I know that the chair has reassured many of us that she feels it is a good platform from which to move forward.
One of the points to address is culture and the improvements that need to be made. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the key statistics is that 41% of staff leave within the first two years? The trust has to improve on that. People who need a lot of mental health support must form relationships with those who are treating them. The number leaving within those first two years is something that the trust has to improve.
Dr Poulter
I agree with my hon. Friend. A key issue faced by a lot of mental health trusts, but which is particularly acute at Norfolk and Suffolk, has been a high rate of staff turnover, and that is not good for continuity of patient care. It is not good when we are talking about embedding a culture of safety and quality improvement. It does not help. It is undoubtedly the case that one of the key challenges going forward that has been identified by the trust and the CQC as well as by NHS Improvement, which has been providing external support, is the need to improve staff recruitment and retention. Some of that is a national challenge, but effective initiatives have been introduced at a local level. The new chief medical officer, for example, has introduced staff recruitment and retention initiatives, some of which are financial and some of which relate to improved job planning, which can help to make the trust a more attractive place for staff, not just to work, but to remain for the longer term. We need to see that kind of work being built on and continue in the months and years ahead. The same is true across nursing and all other staff groups.
Other areas to highlight where things are going well include investment. The trust has invested £3.2 million in digital improvements, £1.6 million in improvements in clinical areas, £1.3 million refurbishing bungalows for people with learning disabilities, £1 million to address safety issues, and £600,000 to improve the pharmacy at Hellesdon Hospital in Norwich. There are new services, including 95 new primary mental health nurses working across the trust directly with primary care, offering more than 80,000 appointments in GP surgeries across Norfolk and Suffolk. There is a 22-strong rehabilitation team and a new armed forces veterans wellbeing service in partnership with Walking with the Wounded and Outside the Wire to help to improve mental health support available to veterans across Norfolk and Suffolk —we have many veterans living in our constituencies.
The trust still has a lot to do, but it has achieved a lot in the past year under new leadership. I should like to put on record my thanks to the board and all the staff for the work they have done in turning things around so effectively and quickly. Key challenges, as we have outlined, remain the recruitment and retention of staff. The trust has launched programmes to address that, but there is still more to do. The CQC report recognised that the NSFT is changing at pace, but it needs to do more than show improvement over a year—it needs to embed the changes, sustain them and secure not just “requires improvement” but “good”. The NSFT needs to continue its work with system partners across Norfolk and Suffolk to improve commissioning and the delivery of mental health services across the patient journey.
The trust requires ongoing support, and I have some brief asks of the Minister. First, the trust requires from the Government another £3 million of funding to complete the £54 million needed for a new campus at Hellesdon Hospital, which would secure the development of three new wards. That is a key aspect of addressing the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) outlined, so that there is less reliance on out-of-area beds. We need more wards to treat more local patients in Norfolk and Suffolk, and less reliance on out-of-area placements. I hope that that £3 million of funding can be secured, and I would be grateful if the Minister outlined how we can go about that.
Secondly, the trust has made inroads into issues associated with its estate, but it needs significant and urgent capital investment in addition to that £3 million to help to develop those new wards and modernise Hellesdon Hospital. More generally, can the Minister outline what capital programmes are available to support the trust in those ambitions?
Thirdly, funding for mental health services has been constrained despite increased needs and patient demand, and, when we are talking about parity of esteem when funding increases for the NHS, my general plea—I would say this as a practising psychiatrist—is for greater funding for general adult and other mainstream psychiatric services.
The next area of asks for the trust is from NHS England. The trust has benefited from strong and experienced outside support from NHS Improvement and from experienced leaders such as Nick Hulme from East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust, who was seconded to support the trust. Now that the trust is out of special measures, I hope there is still an opportunity for some of that external support to be maintained, even in a more informal capacity. I look to the Minister to perhaps outline how that may continue or whether she may be able to give some direction to help with that ongoing support, which the trust has found very helpful during these difficult times.
On local decision makers and stakeholders, the trust supports a new model of care for Norfolk and Suffolk, and ensuring that local ICBs work effectively with it to deliver more preventive upstream care and more care in the community. Reducing inappropriate and unnecessary in-patient admissions is a key priority in the trust’s ambition to transform services and improve patient care, and any support the Minister can offer to encourage or enable the local ICBs to be more effective at doing that would be gratefully received by the trust.
On the issue of breaking up the trust, I would urge the Minister to give a commitment at the Dispatch Box today that, given the progress that has been made by a very effective new board—a group of individuals with a good skillset—and given the commitment that has been shown to staff and to turning around the trust and moving it away from special measures and away from “inadequate” towards “requires improvement”, the threat of the trust being broken up can be taken off the table at this stage so that the trust can focus on caring for its patients. Breaking up the trust now would be very disruptive to patient care. It also would be financially inefficient and would lead to a worsening of the retention and recruitment challenges, which have been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), with staff feeling that their jobs are insecure.
To sum up, we are asking for support with capital projects, particularly around Hellesdon Hospital. We are asking for ongoing support, be it informally from NHSI or key national stakeholders. And we are asking for some encouragement to be provided to the local health and care system to support the trust’s service transformation model. Finally, I hope the Minister can give a commitment this evening that there is no threat of the trust being broken up, so that it can get on and continue to deliver the improvements that have been put in place.
I will cease my remarks, Mr Deputy Speaker. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, but I will put on record once again my thanks to the board and the staff for turning around what was the worst-performing trust in the country and, I hope, putting us in a place where we can be proud of our local NHS mental health trust and where patients will receive a much better quality of care not just today but in the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) for bringing forward this important debate about the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, and for highlighting the progress that has indeed been made. The difficulties at the trust have been well documented, and there have been performance and quality issues for many years. Those have been highlighted on behalf of their constituents by many Members of the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Ipswich (Tom Hunt), many of whom are here this evening. However, all the MPs in Norfolk and Suffolk have worked constructively to make progress and to support the trust, patients and staff.
To understand the root causes and to ensure that effective plans are in place to improve patient outcomes, I and many of my ministerial predecessors have met right hon. and hon. Members from Norfolk and Suffolk collectively on several occasions, alongside NHS England, the CQC and representatives from the trust and the newly formed ICBs, to review progress and to ensure that there was an effective plan to achieve the quality of care that patients and families clearly deserve.
I am pleased that the latest CQC report recognises some key progress in areas that need improvement. The leadership team and staff across the trust should be congratulated on their hard work on that, and on the fact that the trust’s overall rating has moved from “inadequate” to “requires improvement”. Many elements of the report were found to be “good”, however, which indicates that things are moving in the right direction. The CQC also reports that
“the trust had moved at pace to make the necessary changes and…significant improvements could be seen at all levels”,
which is encouraging.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich and other hon. Members from Norfolk and Suffolk were invited to attend a briefing on 23 February, prior to the publication of the inspection. I hope that those who could attend found that session constructive; it sounds as though there is collective agreement that progress has been made. I had a similar session with the CQC the day before and I found the progress encouraging. I was reassured that many of the issues raised previously are being addressed, but there are clearly still significant challenges at the trust that must be addressed, which my hon. Friend outlined well this evening.
I welcome the progress that the trust and its leadership team have made and the fact that they have set out a realistic improvement delivery plan and a commitment to take it forward. I am pleased to hear from the CQC that the trust and all its partners are clear that they cannot take their foot off the pedal. Now is the time to double down on their efforts and not just assume that the progress of the last few months will continue.
I am pleased to confirm that NHS England will continue to provide the existing level of support to the trust. A full-time improvement director is in place, with representation at the trust’s governance meetings, so they have full visibility of the latest data and improvements needed. They will continue to work closely with the trust and key stakeholders to ensure that they continue to build on the recent progress. As part of the next steps, a rapid quality review meeting between the trust and its partners will take place on 27 March.
I will continue to watch closely and to ensure that any concerns that arise are dealt with quickly and at pace. Alongside NHS England, I am keen to ensure that the joint meetings that we were having continue to take place. I intend to hold a follow-up meeting with the relevant Members of Parliament and our system partners in early May, once the rapid quality review meeting has taken place on 27 March and the options review work has concluded. I hope that gives my hon. Friend some reassurance about how seriously we are taking the issue.
On mental health more generally, on 23 January I announced that we were commissioning a rapid review into mental health in-patient settings, with a focus on how we use data and evidence to look at the quality of in-patient services in mental health across England more broadly, including complaints and whistleblowing alerts, to identify risks to safety. The review is being chaired by Geraldine Strathdee and will run for eight weeks. We will shortly get her report and I am keen to implement her findings. That relates to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk made about the culture in mental health and how we change that to improve outcomes for patients. NHS England recently announced a new in-patient quality transformation programme to support cultural change in mental health and to develop a new, bold, reimagined model of care for all NHS-funded mental health services, particularly in an in-patient setting.
In the minute or so I have left, I will touch on a couple of key asks. Capital funding is available for mental health services. A few weeks ago, we announced funding for crisis centres, community support teams and mental health ambulances, so that they can respond more quickly to those going into crisis, in order to try to avoid admissions. More generally, record levels of funding are going into mental health—£2.3 billion extra each year. I encourage the local trust to speak to its integrated care board, which has access to that funding, if it is interested in capital programmes. That is a whistlestop tour of the support that we can give.
Maria Caulfield
I have only a few seconds left.
In conclusion, I hope that reassures all hon. Member across Norfolk and Suffolk that we take the issue seriously. I am delighted that progress is being made across the trust.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Dangerous driving
Bus services in Rotherham
Ballot Secrecy Bill [ Lords ]
Tuesday 7th March 2023
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Ballot Secrecy Act 2023 View all Ballot Secrecy Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 15-I Marshalled list for Committee - (16 Nov 2022)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have the usual reminders for the Committee from Mr Speaker. Please switch electronic devices to silent. You should not have food or drinks during the sitting. Hansard will be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
My selection and grouping for today’s sitting is available online and in the room. No amendments have been tabled; therefore, we will have a single debate on all the clauses in the Bill.
Clause 1
Amendment of the Representation of the People Act 1983
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.
Before I speak to the clauses of the Bill, I want to acknowledge all the work of my noble friend Lord Hayward, who sponsored the Bill in the other place. He is a man of tremendous knowledge of the subject, and it is a great privilege for me to sponsor the Bill in the House of Commons. I am grateful to noble Lords of all parties in the House of Lords who have worked together on the Bill. I thank Ministers and the Department, who have already been engaged with the Bill and improved it through amendment in the Lords.
The House of Commons has had an opportunity to debate the issues that the Bill seeks to address through my Westminster Hall debate on 14 December 2022, which considered the integrity of the voting process. I am grateful to the Minister, who responded then and who is with us today.
The Bill seeks to address issues of family voting, which is where an individual seeks to influence or guide another person, often a family member, when casting their vote. Democracy Volunteers, an independent organisation approved by the Electoral Commission and funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, has identified, in its observations of elections and its reports, that family voting is an issue of concern across the country. Despite the introduction of the secret ballot in 1872, the Electoral Commission has identified that the practice of family voting was not illegal.
This is not a party political issue. Baroness Hayman of Ullock in the other place said:
“We supported the Bill at Second Reading and continue to do so…We need to make sure that we have…an understanding of exactly what is acceptable when people vote in a polling station.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2022; Vol. 825, c. 1158.]
Lord Rennard said:
“Clarity is what we need on these issues if the proper principles behind the Bill are to be enforced. I hope we will proceed very speedily with this Bill becoming law.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2022; Vol. 825, c. 1157.]
Clause 1 sets out the amendments to the Representation of the People Act 1983. A person will commit an offence if they are with another person at a polling booth, or near another person at a polling booth, with the intent to influence that person in a particular way of voting or to refrain from voting. Importantly, the clause is drafted to avoid criminalising innocent behaviour. The intent provision ensures that someone who is with another seeking to influence a vote, whether a bystander or an innocent family member, will not be liable to conviction themselves. Particularly importantly, it also means that someone who is assisting a person who is voting, such as a formal companion of someone who is blind or a presiding officer assisting a disabled voter, is not captured by the clause. That will include those accompanied by a child or children standing together alongside a parent.
The Bill does not have an impact on elections in Scotland or Wales. I understand that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is making the devolved Administrations aware of the issues in this area and the intention to update the law.
Clause 2 provides for the amendment of Northern Ireland legislation. Elections are excepted matters and are not within the competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly. These provisions were introduced in the House of Lords by Government amendment. Clause 3 deals with the extent, commencement and short title. The measures that I have outlined will come into force on a day to be set out in regulations by the Secretary of State. That will allow for the necessary training to be undertaken and preparations made.
In conclusion, the Bill will provide the measures needed to ensure that the practice of family voting no longer undermines the secret ballot. Having a clear offence in law will provide the clarity and certainty that our polling station officials and police need to ensure that the practice is stamped out, and should in many cases improve equality in our voting processes. Some 150 years after the introduction of the secret ballot, we will ensure that all people—all individuals—are free to vote as they wish in secret.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough on introducing the Bill. I do not think anyone on either side of the House will dispute the importance of the secret ballot or the fact that, in a strong democracy, everyone casts their vote for the candidate or party they wish to vote for without any undue influence. Indeed, the secret ballot was a demand of the Chartists, so it is a long-standing demand. I congratulate the Member for bringing the Bill forward, but I will make a few points, and I hope to catch the Minister’s ear.
The legislation goes some way to allowing people to cast their vote for the candidate for whom they wish to vote without undue influence, but it strikes me that there is perhaps a gaping hole in the legislation in that it does not cover postal votes. I draw the Minister’s attention to the Law Commission report on the reform of electoral law, which clearly sets out the weakness in the system around postal votes. Indeed, the commission’s reports on electoral law over the years have consistently pointed out that UK electoral law is fragmented, that some of it is very old, and that it has not been brought together in one consistent piece of legislation.
That makes electoral law challenging for electoral administrators, and confusing for candidates and political parties. Frankly, I suspect that the general public have no chance of fully understanding the complexities of electoral law. The Law Commission has for a long time called on the Government to rationalise electoral law into one single piece of legislation—I suspect that these days it would have to be four pieces of legislation, because of devolution to the countries of the United Kingdom. That would go some way to assisting those of us who participate in elections to understand, abide by and uphold the law.
I am not planning to take up much of the Committee’s time. To conclude, our democracy is always strengthened by participation and encouraging people to take part in democracy. When I first saw the Bill and heard the conversation around family voting, it struck me that perhaps the Committee could send a positive message and encourage parents of children under the age of 18 to take their children with them to polling stations, to show them what is behind the mysterious door of the polling station and how to cast their votes. Then, when they come of age and are entitled to vote, they would perhaps not be daunted by the mysterious place that is a polling station. If people do not know what is behind that door, it can be intimidating to go and vote for the first time. So perhaps another positive that could come out of the Committee is that united message of encouraging parents to take young children with them, and to lift the shroud of mystery around polling stations.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I rise to ask a simple, straightforward question. The Bill applies to parliamentary elections across the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. It applies to English local elections and Northern Ireland Assembly elections. As was said, it does not apply to Scotland or Wales. Rather than just informing the Administrations in Scotland and Wales of this modest change to legislation, have there been any approaches to see whether the Sewel convention could be used, so that the legislation will automatically apply to Wales and Scotland, with their consent?
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr McCabe.
I thank the noble Lord Hayward for sponsoring this important Bill in the other place and I congratulate him on securing its swift progress through to its Commons stages. I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough on his work in this area and on the case he made for the Bill this morning, which was very good and a handy way to start the discussion.
This is a short but important Bill for the integrity of our elections and our democracy more widely. As was covered during debates in the other place—they are very much worth a read, and it was helpful that the hon. Gentleman brought them into this debate, because some of those contributions were excellent—it is crucial that our democratic process is free from abuse and intimidation. That was the spirit of the 1872 Act, 151 years ago, which curtailed many of the terrible practices that occurred in elections before its passing. As was explained in the other place, however, a clear and identifiable problem remains with the Act as it stands: it does not give presiding officers the right tools to tackle the problem of people being compelled to vote one way, or not at all, by others.
It is unacceptable that such practices still occur. The intimidation of voters is contrary to all our democratic principles, but the law as it stands lacks clarity on the matter. That has been acknowledged by the Electoral Commission, which it is helpful to note. There is therefore clearly a case for changing the legislation and making such practices an offence. The Bill will do exactly that.
I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood about a bigger piece of work to consolidate our electoral law in one place. The Law Commission report is a good starter. Those points were well made, and I share them.
Important reassurances were given in the other place—I am sure the Minister will reiterate them—about disabled voters continuing to have any assistance they need to vote, where necessary. That practice, which is right and proper, will not be impacted by the Bill. Last week, I took part in an event—as did the Minister—organised by the My Vote My Voice campaign, which aims to improve participation in voting by adults with learning disabilities and/or autism.
I have had similar such conversations about voting with people with Usher syndrome, those who are deaf and blind more generally, and those who are blind. They all say the same thing: they want hurdles to voting lowered so that they can vote with greater confidence. Happily, the provisions in the Bill do not impair that, but there is something to be said for going above and beyond the Bill, building out from it to ensure that the right technologies are available or that there is staff training. The hon. Member for Peterborough also talked about staff training and how—including under the Elections Act 2022—there should be more training on how to ensure that people living with disabilities can vote independently. We would not then have to worry about another person being there, because the assistive technologies are there—those exist, and that is what such electors want. I hope we build out from this legislation in that way.
To conclude, it is important that we have good, strong law in this area, to provide a clear understanding of what is and what is not acceptable practice at a polling station. The Opposition support the Bill and look forward to its timely passing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.
I am pleased to say that the Government also support the Bill, which is being sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough. We are grateful for his efforts and work in this regard. I join him in paying tribute to Lord Hayward, who has been an absolute stalwart in pushing forward this important agenda and ensuring that the Bill is before us today. He is joined in the Public Gallery by a number of others with interests in this area, including Councillor Tanner and Councillor Peter Golds.
My hon. Friend’s Bill arises from concerns over so-called family voting, which we have discussed, which is when family members or others accompany voters into a polling booth in a polling station for the apparent purpose of influencing or guiding how they cast their vote. The Government share the concerns expressed about the issue and we are committed to safeguarding our democracy against those who would harm it. That is why we are supporting the Bill.
I will run through the clauses briefly, but I do not seek to detain the Committee for too long. Clause 1 makes a number of important changes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough explained, it outlines that a person commits an offence if they are with a voter in a polling booth, or near it, but it also sets out the reasons why people would not be committing an offence in appropriate instances, which have already been outlined—with those who need assistance or are disabled.
As the hon. Member for Nottingham North said, both of us in the past few days have been to events—I am grateful to him for supporting and helping to organise an event last week—at which the importance of greater participation and greater involvement in the democratic process was clear. Those events aim to encourage and support those who need additional assistance, which is a vital part of the electoral system, although we must also ensure that we can do the things that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough is requiring under the Bill.
I hope the hon. Gentleman can see some of the changes that are being introduced in May, particularly with regard to people with sight loss and trying to provide a greater range of options and technology to support them, as a step forward and part of that broad agenda.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I certainly support the good intentions of the Bill, but I seek clarification. How would election officials—returning officers—demarcate somebody who was going about their normal business? I know this will be reflected across the Committee Room, but if my wife and son came along, quite innocently, when I was voting and we went our separate ways, how would that natural family event be demarcated from somebody coercing or applying undue influence at the ballot box?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments because he raises an important point, which is: how will we interpret the legislation? Clause 3, which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough has outlined, provides that additional guidance will need to be put in place to give greater clarity for those who are running individual polling booths. That might not be their day job, and they might come from another part of a local authority and might be taking part in only that one electoral event, so it is right that there will be interpretation and guidance with respect to the Bill. It will be for the Electoral Commission and others to provide that as part of the overall process. Hence, clause 3 outlines the approach we suggest.
Before I come to clause 3, let me refer to clause 2.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
When the Government produce that guidance, would it not make sense for it to say that when two adults were going to a polling booth together, they would need to be doing so in circumstances whereby they were, for example, giving assistance to a disabled person? Therefore, the presumption would be that everyone should go separately, rather than there being a need to prove intent, because it is always difficult to know what is going on in someone else’s mind.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her suggestion. This exchange is highlighting some of the challenges around the level of prescription that needs to be in the process versus the level of discretion. That is one reason that we legislate in this place and a separate body provides interpretation.
The ultimate decision about whether things are appropriate or not appropriate in individual polling booths is down to the presiding officer in that polling booth. Presiding officers will take decisions based on the law and the guidance around the law, and the situation on the ground. I have been the elections Minister for only a few months, but I can see that there is an incredible amount of legislation and guidance in this area. That legislation and guidance provide significant prescription—it is important that there is consistency and clarity across the country when electoral events happen—but equally, guidance can never provide every piece of information for every scenario.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and will feed it into our consideration, but it will be for the Electoral Commission to provide guidance and further information.
Cat Smith
The Minister will be glad to hear that the interventions have inspired another question from me. Will he confirm that the guidance is to be drawn up by the Electoral Commission? If so, the commission will be guided or influenced by the Hansard report of the Committee’s proceedings and the conversations we have had. However, after listening to the interventions that have been made from both sides of the Committee, it strikes me that a lot of pressure is being put on returning officers to interpret events. The Law Commission has been clear in its reports that the pressure on returning officers is increasing and the guidance is increasingly fragmented. We might be reaching a point at which the Elections Act is going to add to those complications.
Does the Minister have any concerns that encouraging people to be returning officers might be a challenge going forward, given their legal responsibilities, and the pressures of applying the law and interpreting events in polling stations? Indeed, I was not registered to vote at the last polling station I went to; I went with my partner. There were elections in Scotland and none in my part of England at the time. I think I jokingly said to him, “Vote Labour.” Can the Minster clarify that would not be a breach of the law? I am quite confident that he did not go and vote Labour.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments; she raises an important point. The guidance will be drawn up by the Electoral Commission in the normal way. As part of that process, there will be opportunities for people, including from outside this Committee, to make their views known. Ensuring that there are sufficient people to support both local and general elections is a long-term challenge within local government. Finding people to staff polling stations has been a general challenge for a number of years.
I have been talking to the Association of Electoral Administrators about the issue, and I spoke with Solace—the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives—only last Thursday. My colleagues and I will continue to do that. There are several challenges, but we are also looking at alternatives and ways to mitigate those issues. Local authorities are putting a huge amount of work into the preparations for May to ensure that the right number of staff is available, whether they are employed by the individual local authority or elsewhere in the normal way.
I hope that the guidance will provide clarity on some of those examples. I am a relatively smaller-state Conservative, but I recognise that, in certain parts of the law, it is important that there is sufficient proscription about what is happening. There should be sufficient clarity on the guidance, and enough consistency around the country for there to be no suggestion of a problem. I am sure that the Electoral Commission will read Hansard and take note of the hon. Lady’s point.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough indicated, clause 2 will ensure that the provisions cover Northern Ireland as well as England, given that elections are excepted matters. We have already talked about clause 3 to some extent. It will give the Government the opportunity to set out the day or days on which the regulations will come into force. That is what we talked about a moment ago with regard to guidance, clarification and ensuring consistency underneath the legislation, with time to work through the process.
I turn to a couple of additional points that have not been addressed so far. In her initial intervention, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood talked about postal votes. She will be aware that there are further changes coming in under the Elections Act 2022. They will require, for example, people to reapply for postal votes every three years. I hope she can see that there is tightening going on in this place.
The Government will always look at other challenges, issues and opportunities going forward. As the hon. Lady outlined, there is a long-standing desire on the part of the Law Commission to look at how we can make this area more clearcut. The Government will continue to discuss it, and I hope that in time we can move in that direction. I know the hon. Lady will accept that this is a significant piece of work, and we need to think it through, as and when that may be appropriate.
Finally, on the point made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough indicated, there have been discussions with the devolved Administrations, although I am happy to provide separate information outside this Committee to answer the hon. Member’s specific question.
This is an important area of policy and an important proposal. Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough on bringing the Bill forward and I look forward to it going on the statute book. As we have all indicated, both in this Committee and previously, clarification of the law in this area is important. That is why the Government are supporting the Bill, and I urge other Members to do so.
Paul Bristow
I do not want to talk for too long, but I will say a few words of thanks to close. I reiterate my thanks to the noble Lord Hayward and my personal admiration for him and the way he has pushed through this Bill. I also thank Councillor Tanner, who has been a source of advice and support on this, and thank all colleagues for serving on this Bill Committee, as well as the officials. Particular thanks go to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, who was one of the first to volunteer for this Committee. She shares my passion for these issues.
I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. The hon. Members for Caerphilly and for Weaver Vale, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made interesting points. I thank the shadow Minister, who made a good and powerful speech. The cross-party nature with which the Bill has been taken through Parliament shows this place at its best. We can produce good legislation when we all work together. Finally, I thank the Minister and the officials from his Department. This legislation is incredibly important. Today, we are upholding the integrity of our democracy.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Westminster Hall
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
Decarbonising Rural Transport
(1 year, 2 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
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered decarbonising rural transport.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, which is so important to those of us who live in rural constituencies like mine.
Transport is the United Kingdom’s highest-emitting sector and is responsible for a quarter of our emissions. If we want to achieve net zero by 2050, we need to reduce emissions from our cars, vans and lorries, but we also need to recognise that rural transport is different from urban, and that reliance on cars is so much higher in rural areas. Therefore, we need to include rurality as a factor in more decisions on how we move to decarbonise our transportation.
Public transport is limited in rural Britain, and given the sparsity of population, expanding it along the lines of transport in our towns and cities is not, in general, financially viable, or even welcome—for example, sending enormous buses through tiny country lanes—but we must find ways to extend routes, provide smaller vehicles or car shares, and reintroduce train lines, especially where there has been large growth in housing, such as between Bideford and Barnstaple in my constituency of North Devon.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
East Sussex County Council has an excellent bus service improvement plan, one of whose objectives is progressively to support operators to increase the number of zero-emission buses used on the network and to upgrade diesel buses to Euro 6 standard as part of the drive to achieve net carbon neutrality by 2050.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to fulfil that objective, further Government funding opportunities will be required to introduce battery electric buses or hydrogen fuel cell buses, and for retrofitting to Euro 6 specification, and that decarbonisation of rural transport should not be restricted to local buses but should include trains? Does she further agree that the extension of HS1 from Ashford to Rye, Hastings and Bexhill, which will decarbonise and make the journey faster, is essential?
Selaine Saxby
My hon. Friend is entirely right that all of us in rural constituencies have plans that we need our councils to deliver to facilitate the decarbonisation of our rural transport network. The challenge we face is that, unfortunately, there is not always the funding to support those fantastic rural transport schemes, although I hope the Minister will reassure us on that point. I will come to some of my own suggestions for the bus network in Devon.
Active travel is an opportunity for some, but the distances involved in rural commuting by bike mean that it is not always an option for everyone. In my constituency of North Devon, 2.4% of work journeys are made by bike, which is a surprisingly high percentage for such a rural area, but realistically, active travel is unlikely to replace huge numbers of car journeys unless it is integrated into a wider transport solution.
I will return to the opportunities to tackle the issues of public transport and active travel, but we need to be realistic: rural Britain will continue to rely on its cars for the foreseeable future.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Limited public transport options in rural communities mean that, as the hon. Lady says, many residents depend on their car for everything—getting to work, going to the doctor, seeing family and friends. Does she agree that any strategy to decarbonise rural transport needs to improve connectivity so that social isolation is not inadvertently increased?
Selaine Saxby
I agree entirely that there are so many more challenges around rural connectivity. If we are to continue to rely on our cars, we need to decarbonise them, but the roll-out of electric charging points in rural Britain lags behind that in towns, and when the distances we travel per day are so much greater, investing in an electric vehicle is a far harder decision to take.
Only 1.5% of North Devon residents have gone fully electric, compared with 2.1% nationally. I have a hybrid, as the majority of electric vehicles would not get me to Westminster each week, and I am not sure I would ever get to Exmoor in my constituency and back home as there are no charging points where I live. The nearest one is 5 miles away. To plug in at home, I would need to lay my own cable down 20 feet of path every evening, and I am not sure my schedule accommodates that.
While the Transport Minister is here, I want to highlight the appalling state of the roads in Devon. I am fully aware that we have the longest road network in the United Kingdom by 2,000 miles and that the council is working flat out to try to repair the proliferation of potholes that we have seen this winter. Not only has the weather contributed but we need to recognise that in rural Britain we have enormous farm vehicles on tiny lanes and we therefore create even more potholes, yet our council is not assigned long-term funding solutions to tackle them.
The short-term approach to funding, with inadequate rural weighting, makes the cost of repairing each pothole far higher. At this time, Devon is moving teams off scheduled roadworks as we cannot take on full-time highways teams due to the uncertainty around long-term funding. I hope that the Minister will be able to take that away and see what more can be done to address the entirely unacceptable state of our roads. If there were an Ofsted inspection of roads, I suspect we would go into special measures, yet the current funding mechanism contributes to that. The damage that potholes do to vehicles is also hugely expensive to motorists and the council, which is no doubt reimbursing a growing number of inconvenienced motorists with damaged tyres. And it deters people from switching to active travel solutions because of the potential risk of falling due to a pothole.
I spend a lot of time in this place talking about connectivity, often the communication kind, but our transport connections are vital. The lack of decarbonised public transport is impacting on decarbonising our travel.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing a really important debate. When it comes to decarbonising public transport, bus use is massively important in rural communities like hers and mine. I am sure she will agree with me that the Government’s £2 cap on bus fares is a positive thing and it is positive that it has been extended to June, but even more positive would be to extend it beyond that. But it is of no use whatever if someone lives in a community where there is no bus service. When I think about places in my own community such as the Cartmel peninsula and areas in Cumbria such as the Eden valley, there is a lack of options when it comes to bus services—far too few or none at all—so it would make sense to give local authorities like the new Westmorland and Furness Council the power to start and run their own bus services to fill in the gaps and people could spend their £2 on bus services that actually exist.
Selaine Saxby
I agree with the hon. Member. There is so much more that could be done. With so many of these rural transport issues, we need local solutions and for local communities to be able to share their best practice, because there are some great local bus solutions up and down the country. I have a remote district council that is detached from the county council, which is where highways sits. How do we join up those pieces? More could be done to come up with innovative solutions, which already exist in places, but are not universally available. Indeed, bus travel in my constituency is not universally available, let alone decarbonised, and that makes things as basic as getting to school both expensive and problematic.
Our bus company, which I recently met, notes that people are tending to make fewer trips than they did before the pandemic and also tending to make shorter and more local journeys as opposed to long-distance trips on a daily basis. Public transport providers have had to adapt to that, but our communities still rightfully expect the same connections to exist as they did before the pandemic, or even new connections to be developed as society has changed.
Broadly in my constituency the patronage has recovered to about 80% to 90% of pre-pandemic levels, but with concessionary journeys recovering only to around 70%. That recovery creates a challenge in rural settings where margins were stretched or non-existent before the pandemic. Funding needs to respect rurality and the higher costs of operating the routes. That could be done through paying bus service operator grants on a mile or kilometre basis as opposed to per litre of fuel to cover costs. I am assured that the industry wishes to engage with the Department on those points so that a longer-term settlement can be reached to support rural services on a longer-term basis as opposed to the current cycle of short-term funding that we are in, even though that funding is greatly appreciated.
The current Get Around for £2 is fabulous. In my constituency people can do a fantastic trip from Barnstaple to Lynton for just £2—a full 26 miles—or get to Exeter on the bus for £2. In normal times, to get from Ilfracombe, which has recently lost its last bank, to Barnstaple for the nearest branch, is two to three times more than the current £2 rate. We need to find a way to facilitate access to services for remote rural communities. In other communities, such as Woolacombe, employers provide buses for their teams to get to work, because there are no public transport options.
In the peak of the tourist season, overlaid with parking challenges and air pollution, huge queues of visitors and locals try to get to our beautiful beaches. Although the availability of public transport is my primary concern, decarbonisation of it is an entirely different matter, as rural bus journeys are significantly longer than urban ones. Capital investment in suitable vehicles is by definition going to be higher in rural Britain.
I recently spoke here about introducing a rail link from Barnstaple to Bideford. We also unsuccessfully submitted an inquiry into putting in a light rail link from Braunton to Barnstaple. Time and again, those projects do not progress; one cannot help but think that our rurality and population sparsity are factors. I hope that the Department for Transport will continue its positive work in active travel, with the latest round of funding of £200 million including rurality as a factor for the first time.
The previous cycling Minister visited north Devon’s iconic Tarka trail. Completing a stretch of that trail would see the north and south coasts of Devon fully connected. The project was ranked second out of six submitted by Devon County Council. The council team met the Minister to explain their frustration at having the five Exeter-based projects succeed, yet the second highest priority project rejected. I am delighted that rurality is now being considered following the Minister’s visit, and that the Tarka trail project is now being resubmitted. I hope that Active Travel England and the Department will look favourably upon it, and take further steps to enable more active travel solutions come to fruition in rural Britain.
Large counties such as Devon, with big urban centres and an enormous rural hinterland, need different approaches for those two elements. As a community, we would benefit hugely from electric bikes, which can undertake longer, hillier journeys and enable people who may not be able to cycle so far on a traditional bike to do so. Again, electric bike hire facilities are available at transport hubs in Exeter but not Barnstaple.
To begin to decarbonise our transport network, we need to look to transport hubs, where active travel can potentially be the first or last mile. To do that, our buses and trains should be better at taking bikes, hubs should have better bike storage and there should be electric vehicle chargers, if travellers are connecting to buses or trains, alongside public toilets.
Tim Farron
I am taking advantage of the hon. Lady’s generosity, for which I am grateful. I am in full agreement with what she says about transport hubs, where there can be electric bikes, non-electric bikes, and bus and rail interchanges. In our community, we have several railway lines: Settle to Carlisle, the Furness line, the Lakes line and the main line. My great concern is that we stand to lose railway station ticket offices at Grange, Appleby and Windermere. Would those not be great places to have hubs? Is that not a good argument to ensure we maintain fully-staffed railway stations in rural communities?
Selaine Saxby
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is important to look at rurality in how we deal with all infrastructure developments. I know that my own ticket office in Barnstaple has concerns. I have only one trainline, so his constituency is particularly well connected. We need to recognise that, where there is a sparse population, ticket offices are working less than in a busy town centre. We need to be more innovative in our approach, to ensure that residents who do not use trains so often can comfortably use the train station and transport hubs.
I was coming on to say that facilities such as public toilets are a vital part of transport hubs. Barnstaple’s bus station toilets have not reopened since March 2020. If we are serious about encouraging public transport usage and decarbonising our transport, we need to recognise that longer journeys, with longer waits between buses and trains, require these additional facilities to be present, particularly for our older residents. The lack of hubs that are safe, warm and have the right facilities makes using public transport far harder in locations such as North Devon at this time.
Far too many routes in rural Britain are single-carriageway, 60-mile-an-hour roads. If we are to tackle that head-on, to facilitate safer cycling and walking on those roads, we need additional paths to be constructed to facilitate things such as safe school journeys on foot or bike. Although today’s debate focuses on decarbonisation, we could also consider the health benefits of an active travel mode to work or school, which often seem to be somewhat neglected.
I recognise that, as was mentioned earlier, there are examples across the UK of great rural transport schemes. However, as with so many matters around rurality, as discussed in the debate that I led on levelling up rural Britain, it is harder for these examples of best practice to be shared between councils and communities. I hope that as we move towards decarbonising our transportation, more support is given to overstretched councils to share best practice and roll out solutions to rural as well as urban Britain and find funding solutions that give councils the ability to deliver a decarbonisation plan that reflects rurality, alongside an acceptance that the costs per capita will differ. In areas reliant on their tourists, the population swells enormously in the summer, which, again, is rarely reflected in funding settlements or even the calculation of carbon pollution.
Rural Britain deserves to see its transport decarbonised. Our productivity is reduced because of the poor transport links. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister has plans in his Department to ensure that rurality is rapidly included in future funding announcements and that there are long-term settlements lying ahead—it was so warmly welcomed to have rurality mentioned in the current round of active travel funding—because we all want to level up and decarbonise transport in rural Britain.
Several hon. Members rose—
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
Order. I remind any hon. Members wanting to speak that they should bob if they have not done so. Thank you so much. I will ask Jim Shannon to speak next.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I think the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) is first, Mr Davies.
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
This is the first time you have been called first, I know.
Jim Shannon
To be first on the list—my goodness. I am almost in a state of shock. Mr Davies, you are very kind. Thank you for giving me the chance to contribute. Others will contribute as well.
I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for leading today’s debate and setting the scene so well. She is right. The examples from her constituency are replicated across all the other constituencies represented here. Those hon. Members who have intervened so far have given an indication of the same issues.
As someone who represents a rural constituency, I have stated before that it is imperative that there is sustainable and economical transport for our constituents who live out in the countryside. I am very fortunate in that I have lived in the countryside all my life. I am very pleased to do so. I love the green fields; I do not like the concrete—that is no secret. That is why London does not really appeal to me as a place where I would want to live—there is not enough greenery around me to enjoy. But that is a choice that I have and that I have been able to make over the years.
We have seen the expansion of “green” transport to protect and preserve our atmosphere and environment, and we must continue to do this as time goes on. The hon. Lady outlined that. The issue must be addressed not only in England but UK-wide to ensure that we are consistent and equal in our efforts to decarbonise rural transport. I realise that the Minister is responsible only for England, but my comments will be on Northern Ireland, as they always are, and what we have done there.
Electric car charging points are few and far between. In rural areas, we have few or no charging points; they are always concentrated, as it is probably right that they should be, in towns—in my constituency, it is the towns of Newtownards and Comber. There are not enough charging points; I realise that. Central Government here have taken a decision to support the Northern Ireland Assembly and, with that process in mind, have allocated money to ensure that charging points are available across my constituency as well. There is an issue not with the number of charging points but with the time it takes to charge a car. The hon. Member for North Devon talked about needing 20 feet of cable to charge her car. Wherever there is a charging point, it is also important to have enough charging connections. I am not in any way influenced to buy an electric car, but my sons have done so; they are moving with the times, while their father may not be anxious to do that. My point is that we need charging points and enough connections. If it takes six hours to charge a car, as some people have indicated to me, then that tells me that we need more connections.
Margaret Ferrier
Transitioning the country from petrol to electric vehicles requires extensive work that needs to be done by 2030. The Government have already acknowledged that poor grid connectivity in rural areas could be a real problem when it comes to the charging infrastructure. Does the hon. Member agree that the current reliance on the private sector to decide on charge point locations and the lack of central policy around that could create a barrier to reaching the target?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her wise and salient words. In Newtownards for example, people can charge their electric cars at the shopping centre, but if they want to go elsewhere in the town, they cannot charge their cars. Councils have a key role in prioritising charging points and, as the hon. Lady said, we must not depend on private companies, who may put charging points only in places that are advantageous to them. I am not saying such companies do not have a role, but the issue needs to be looked at more widely and in greater depth.
I am pleased to record a recent development by Wrightbus, whose headquarters are in Ballymena, in Northern Ireland, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley); indeed, my hon. Friend talked about this last week at Transport questions in the main Chamber. Wrightbus has secured a major order to supply 117 zero-emission buses across England, thanks to an investment of £25.3 million by the Government. That is an example of the many things that the Government are doing.
Operated by First Bus, the buses will be rolled out across Yorkshire, Norfolk, Portsmouth and Hampshire, and will enable passengers to enjoy greener, cleaner journeys. Therefore there is a strategy and we, in Northern Ireland, are very much part of that. The new buses will be manufactured by Wrightbus in Ballymena, supporting hundreds of new high-skilled jobs to help level up and grow the economy. Some of those workers live in my constituency of Strangford and travel to the Wrightbus headquarters for their work, so there is a spin-off in jobs, opportunity and economic advantage.
The new additional funding brings the vision of a net zero transport network one step closer to reality. The double-decker battery electric buses are 44% more efficient grid to wheel, saving energy costs and carbon. That is another example of how we are moving forward. The fact that the buses are manufactured in Ballymena means that the whole United Kingdom has the chance to benefit from that advantage, and hopefully other companies will be able to do the same.
The funding is an additional investment from the zero-emission buses regional area scheme, which was launched in 2021 to allow local transport authorities to bid for funding for zero-emission buses and supporting infrastructure. The Government have a policy that is working. Obviously it is a first stage, but I believe the policy will be able to go a lot further.
While it is a welcome and much-needed step, it goes back to my point that this needs to be a UK-wide measure. As the buses are manufactured in Northern Ireland, it would be fantastic for the Northern Ireland economy if some of the buses could be administered across the Province. We manufacture and sell the buses across the United Kingdom, but unfortunately we do not have much take-up back home, but I know Translink, our bus company, has purchased some.
The Secretary of State for Transport met Wrightbus representatives to discuss the success and stated that it would help level up transport across the country, yet the funding has been awarded only to places in England. While I respect the fact that infrastructure and transport are devolved matters, there needs to be greater communication between Westminster and the devolved Governments in relation to nationwide levelling up. I support the Government’s levelling-up policy. I think they have taken giant leaps to make levelling up happen, and this is such an example.
We need ideas for decarbonising public transport in more rural areas, where the population is more dispersed. As others have said, we do not have the continuity or regularity of buses that we should have in rural communities in order to incentivise people to leave their cars and use buses. We in the countryside—especially where I live in the Ards peninsula; indeed, in the whole of the Ards peninsula—depend on our cars, whether they are diesel, petrol or, in my son’s case, electric.
It will always be challenging and expensive to provide the decarbonisation of public transport, but many residents have brought to my attention that some rural buses routes are extremely limited anyway, and I want to put that on the record. There is hope that installing hydrogen buses in rural areas will further discourage people from using cars, which is certainly the intention. People with cars can jump in them and go—they do not have to wait for a bus to come along—but others are probably in a position where they can do that. The use of hydrogen buses and other approaches tend to focus on densely populated urban areas, as there may be a critical mass of people to support public transport services, so it is great to see some Government commitment and willingness to ensure that efforts are made to decarbonise our rural communities too.
I hope that the Minister can join me in congratulating Wrightbus, take the comments of Members from across the House into consideration, and ensure that there is equal opportunity for rural decarbonisation across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing the debate. I think we all agree that this is a really important topic, and it is good to have the opportunity to air the issues.
I am sure we are all aware that domestic transport is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country. The Department for Transport’s 2022 statistical estimates report that cars emit more greenhouse gases per passenger mile than trains and coaches, for the obvious reason that trains and coaches convey more people, so maximising the number of people in a vehicle for each journey is a really important part of meeting our emissions targets. The example that the Department gives is a long-distance one: on a journey between London and Glasgow, the average petrol car emits over four times more CO2 than the equivalent journey by coach for each person, or 3.3 times more CO2 per passenger than an electric car, once it has been taken into account that we do not generate all our electricity in a totally green way.
In rural areas, it is proving really difficult to get such efficiencies and cut the greenhouse gases that we emit because of the high level of dependency on private cars, which are mostly non-electric. Our bus services are already very poor and have been driven to the verge of extinction by the covid pandemic, and it is well documented that usage has not yet recovered to pre-pandemic levels. In Shropshire, services have continued to be cut since 2020 because they are no longer considered commercially viable. Obviously, we are not just talking about the tiny hamlets where everyone accepts it would be uneconomical and unsuitable for a large bus to trundle through; market towns of under 20,000 or 30,000 people are suffering as well.
North Shropshire has five market towns with fewer than 20,000 people, which contain about half the population of the area. There are also a significant number of larger villages that sit on main roads, and they are all pretty poorly served. There is only one bus service running in the whole county on a Sunday, and the weekday and Saturday services have been reduced, with early and end-of-day services being cut back. Even some Saturday services are at risk: the service from Shrewsbury to Market Drayton in my constituency, and on to Hanley in Stoke-on-Trent, is at risk of being axed on a Saturday. It has been given an interim stay of execution by Shropshire Council, but given that the council has missed on the bus back better funding and money from its bus improvement plan as part of the levelling-up bid, it is now looking to make cuts of at least £150 million over the next three years, and I fear for route’s future. As the hon. Member for North Devon said, we need to take into account that Government grants for public transport in rural areas are more expensive than grants for urban areas. We need to accept that and consider whether the need requires them.
Selaine Saxby
Does the hon. Lady agree that, far too often, our rural bus routes are the first thing that is threatened when our large rural councils face funding pressures?
Helen Morgan
Yes, I agree. We have absolutely seen that in North Shropshire and across the rest of the county. It is causing us a number of different issues, in addition to those of climate emissions. Already in my constituency, it is no longer possible to access one of our two key hospitals in Telford from Oswestry without changing services at least twice. There is no direct public transport service at all between Market Drayton, a town of around 12,000 people, and the sizeable town of Telford, where there are all sorts of extra services that people might want to access.
The impact of those poor and continually reducing services is twofold. First, a private car is a necessary part of life in the countryside or in one of the smaller towns, and many households have to find the money for at least two if the adults in those households work in separate directions. Once they have forked out for a private car and accepted the expense of running it, they are less likely to use the available public transport, so we are in a downward spiral of cuts to public transport as it becomes more and more uneconomic.
Jim Shannon
It is not just those who have one or two cars in their households; it is their families and where they work. By and large, if someone wants a job in my constituency, they have to travel to Newtownards or Belfast. Then, there are the extra complications of employment and getting access at the right time for shift work, and buses are probably not on at that time. So there are other complications for people who live in the countryside.
Helen Morgan
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman and am just about to come on to that.
Helen Morgan
Yes. Secondly, if someone cannot access a car because they are young, are prevented from driving by their health or simply cannot afford to run one, they become stranded on the island of where they live. They cannot sign up to a college course, they cannot commit to a job outside the area and, in many cases, they cannot access what is becoming increasingly centralised healthcare provision without calling on endless favours from friends and family or using private cars instead.
The lack of a usable service not only means we emit far more greenhouse gases than we used to or, more accurately, than we need to, but there is a social and economic cost. For instance, the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital in Gobowen, near Oswestry in North Shropshire, is a top-class orthopaedic hospital with a dedicated veterans’ centre that takes patients from all over the country. We are extremely proud of it. Recently, however, the hospital is struggling to recruit and retain its staff and one of the factors in that is the lack of a bus service back into Oswestry for those working early or late shifts because those end-of-day services have been axed from the route. More widely, the issue is driving young people from our towns, increasing the proportion of elderly residents, and harming the economic vibrance of the high streets.
How can we reverse that in an area where the council is spending 85% of its budget on social care and where bus services have been so badly depleted that the remaining routes are uneconomic? At this point, I should also mention the importance of active travel. For an increasingly elderly population, in an area where rural roads are single carriageway with quite fast speeds, it is probably not sensible to suggest that those people should be cycling every day between the market towns, which are some distance away from each other.
Margaret Ferrier
The focus on active travel is sensible, because it has both an environmental and health benefit. However, there are many reasons that is not a suitable focus for rural communities when it comes to decarbonisation. Does the hon. Member share my concern that while the Government’s active travel strategy seems to acknowledge that, they have yet to set out any further specific guidance?
Helen Morgan
I think that is a fair point. Active travel has a role to play in towns, but it is concerning that we are not investing in public transport to move people around in rural areas. We need some clarity on that.
Going back to cycling and walking, many shorter journeys within towns can be made easier on a bike or on foot if there is a sensible network of crossings and dropped kerbs. In towns such as North Shropshire’s, which are largely medieval market towns, it would clearly be difficult to add a big network of cycle lanes into the narrow roads. During covid, councils were very quick to reimagine the way vehicles flowed around the town, making a pedestrian-friendly space workable at a fast pace. It would be good to see those councils being encouraged to continue to find practical ways of allowing people to move more easily around the centre of our towns. Removing the need for even a proportion of short car journeys, even if only on days when the weather is good, would surely have an impact on car emissions and—as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) just pointed out—improves the health and wellbeing of anyone who decides to walk and cycle a little more.
Returning to the thorny issue of public transport, I am afraid that national intervention is probably needed. I welcome the restoring your railways scheme; North Shropshire has a great bid in for the Oswestry to Gobowen line, with an important stop at the hospital, and I take this opportunity to plug that bid. However, railway stations are not accessible for everyone. There is not really access for all where there is no step-free access to the railway station, which is another big problem in rural constituencies. At Whitchurch in my constituency, people cannot access the southbound platform, so despite the fact that there is actually a pretty good public transport service into Shrewsbury and beyond, on the main line to Crewe and Manchester, if someone has trouble with steps or has a lot of heavy baggage or a pushchair, they will turn again to their private car.
We are on the list for the Access for All plan. We have made our bid, which I hope will be successful, but it takes years and years to come through. If we are trying to get to net zero by 2050, the Access for All process really does need to be speeded up and, let’s face it, most places do not have a railway station or a railway line. Many of those stations have been axed from rural market towns and would be totally uneconomic to reinstate, particularly as those towns largely have housing estates over the former track, so we need to have a nationally led bus strategy that addresses people getting out of their cars and on to buses.
What would that look like? I am open-minded about demand-led travel and the technology that enables it, and it may well be part of the solution to improve connectivity and public transport in the more rural parts of Britain, and to integrate that with other parts of the network. We see elements of that with some of the voluntary schemes that are in place—the dial-a-ride, North Salop Wheelers-type schemes that help to get elderly and more vulnerable people out of their houses and into the towns on market days. However, those schemes are volunteer-run by nature, which is not necessarily sustainable. Demand-led travel might be part of the solution, but in areas where the population is sparse and the benefits of lift sharing and journey planning might be more limited, we still need a proper investigation into the relative benefits of demand-led travel and a good look at reliable, clock-face services for smaller market towns and the feed-in services from their surrounding villages.
We do, of course, need to talk about the types of buses—the fact that they do not all need to be huge, and that in future, they probably need to be electric or hydrogen-fuelled—but I will not elaborate on that point, because it has already been made. We should also accept that in small villages, there will always be a need for the private car, and we need to continue to incentivise the roll-out of electric cars. Public charging points are, therefore, really important. We are only just beginning to see the roll-out of public charging points in North Shropshire, but the capacity of the electricity infrastructure to cope with the additional demand on the rural grid is absolutely critical. I urge the Minister to consider not only the number of points, but the ability of the underlying energy infrastructure to support what is going to be an increasing electricity load, particularly in rural areas.
Overall, I support empowering local councils to develop their own public transport plans within the framework of a national strategy to find the solution that serves their area best. Empowering means funding and supporting those councils with the expertise they need to deliver a better future for rural transport, and funding them to tackle the additional rural distances is a critical factor. The rural economy, just like the climate, is approaching a tipping point, so we need a radical approach to public transport that can help tip both things in the right direction.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Davies; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating it.
The hon. Member opened the debate very well, setting out a number of issues that are the same across pretty much all rural areas in the UK. As she said, many of the solutions for our towns and cities simply would not suit a rural setting or be as efficient. She mentioned a lack of electric vehicle chargers and the reinstatement of rail lines. She also welcomed the Government’s £200 million active travel budget and plans, although that pales into insignificance compared with the Scottish Government’s investment in active travel, as I will set out.
The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) mentioned zero-emission buses and the requirement for further Government support. I could not agree more, and I will touch on that later. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) made an excellent point about social isolation, and how we need to be careful that rural decarbonisation solutions do not entrench those issues or make them worse. She also made a salient point about capacity issues in our rural electricity grid.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)— I call him the hon. Member for Strangford and Westminster Hall West—gave an excellent speech, as usual. My biggest surprise was that he said he liked something green; that may also be a surprise to some people watching, certainly in Scotland. He mentioned the time it takes to charge a car. In a recent debate in this place, we spoke about the charging issues in Northern Ireland. As an EV owner myself, I would have been unlikely to make the switch if I lived in Northern Ireland, such is the paucity of public chargers over there. He also mentioned the importance of the UK Government’s ZEBRA—zero-emission bus regional areas—scheme, and obviously he has Wrightbus in Northern Ireland. The implementation of that scheme is frankly shocking, but I will touch on that later.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) made an excellent point about the issues with recruitment and retention for all sorts of businesses and services in rural areas because of the lack of connectivity and public transport. That does not help with the brain drain of young people leaving rural areas to go to cities and large towns. She also spoke about the lack of rural rail services in North Shropshire and elsewhere, which leads me to my own remarks.
Scotland has led the way on transport innovation over the years, and our track record on rail decarbonisation is yet another example of that. The world’s first electric railway locomotive was powered by batteries and invented in Scotland. It was designed by Robert Davidson of Aberdeen and first tested on the Glasgow to Edinburgh line. If we fast-forward over a century, one of the first battery trains to be used in regular passenger service was deployed on the Aberdeen to Ballater line. It is powered by clean, renewable electricity provided by the hydro board.
Today, the Bo’ness and Kinneil railway is seeing testing of a class 314 train formerly used as a workhorse on the Strathclyde lines. It has been converted to hydrogen-fuelled operation, and it is being put through its paces by the University of St Andrews, Transport Scotland, Scottish Enterprise and Ballard Motive Solutions. That kind of innovation is one part of the deployment of investment and policy decisions that make Scotland a leader in the decarbonisation of rural transport.
The reopening of Reston station in the Scottish Borders is another such example, with £20 million of investment from the Scottish Government accompanied by £3 million from Scottish Borders Council. That investment will improve bus links to and from the station, making it a hub for an area of the east borders that has been poorly served by public transport. Reston itself is a village with only a few hundred souls, but the integrated transport package introduced by local and national Government has turned it into a major transport centre, giving access to major cities on both sides of the border to a population that was previously either poorly served or not served at all by links beyond the local area.
The Scottish Borders were hit harder than most areas by the post-war retrenchment in rail. Peebles, Eyemouth, Kelso, Duns, Hawick, Selkirk and Melrose—I am starting to sound like a Bill McLaren rugby commentary—were all linked by rail to the wider country and the world. However, post-war mistakes in rail management across the UK, and the Beeching axe, left the borders with no rail links at all for 40 years, until the Scottish Government reopened the Borders railway in 2015. That new route is among the first in line for the next tranche of electrification on Scotland’s railways. After 40 years of isolation from the rest of this island’s rail network, the borders are seeing a bonanza in rail, integrated public transport and decarbonisation, which is surely unmatched by any comparable rural area on these islands.
The Scottish Borders are just one example of how decarbonisation is not constrained to our urban areas. We have seen the Invernet service, which provides commuter rail in the Inverness area, as well as the opening of the Inverness Airport railway station. Reopening the station at Beauly, which has a population of just over 1,000, generated more than 50,000 passenger journeys a year pre covid.
In the north-east, we have seen a step change in rail provision with the full introduction of the Aberdeen Crossrail, which connects Inverurie to Montrose via Aberdeen with regular fast services. Those communities will benefit still further from the rolling programme of electrification in Scotland, with main routes to the central belt, as well as the Inverness to Aberdeen route, becoming wired. The programme will also electrify the Glasgow to Dumfries route—indeed, part of it is being electrified as we speak—giving a huge boost to rural communities along its length. It will also give us scope to look again at the rural stations closed by the Beeching axe and at how we can apply the lessons learned from the Reston reopening to another area in the south of Scotland.
By 2045, every rail line in Scotland bar the West Highland and Far North lines, and the Girvan to Stranraer line, will be fully electrified. That is quite an achievement in a country where modernisation was ignored by this place for decades, until devolution and the Scottish Parliament came along. Clearly, 100% electrification would be preferable, but the economic reality is that electrification cannot always be justified in rural areas. However, that must not mean that more sparsely populated locales miss out on decarbonisation, and lines without full electrification will see the roll-out of innovative and game-changing trains such as battery electric and, potentially, hydrogen trains.
It is not just our rail network that is being transformed through funding from the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland. Fully 20% of the funding and buses on the road as a result of the first round of ScotZEB—the Scottish zero-emission bus challenge fund—went to operators in rural areas, from Campbeltown to Lockerbie and Aberdeenshire to Dumfries and Galloway.
In addition, Loganair has set a target to have a fully zero-emission fleet of aircraft serving Scotland’s islands and rural communities by 2040. Orkney is the hotbed for trials of electric and hydrogen-fuelled planes, with the islands expected to see the first scheduled zero-emission services as it becomes feasible to start rolling out the technology for passenger service. Those air links are a lifeline for the communities they serve, and making them net zero will play a crucial role in Scotland’s journey to being a net zero country by 2045. All this is evidence that decarbonisation is not just about urban and suburban travel; with the right strategy and package of investments, we can push modal shift in rural areas too.
Rural Scotland is also powering ahead in decarbonising private transport. Among the local authorities with the highest per capita penetration of public charge points are Orkney, Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Argyll and Bute, Highland, Shetland, and Dumfries and Galloway. Most of the time in those areas, there is no alternative to private motors, so we want to support infrastructure to ensure that EVs are a practical solution. All those areas have seen a massive increase in public chargers over the past few years; since 2019, their numbers have more than doubled in Orkney and increased by 177% in Argyll and Bute. They are also up 194% in Highland, marrying up with the A9 electric highway, which links the highlands and the central belt. If we are serious about rolling out chargers to the level needed to hit our targets to phase out petrol and diesel cars, the number in rural Scotland needs to continue to increase at its current rate. The Scottish Government have shown the way, and it is for others—particularly the DFT—to learn from their lead.
I cannot let pass an opportunity to highlight Scotland’s transformational active travel budget, which will reach £320 million—10% of Scotland’s entire travel budget—by the end of this Parliament. Bear in mind that that is in a country one tenth the size of that served by the DFT, whose £200 million budget was heralded—no offence to the hon. Member for North Devon. That £320 million investment will upgrade our network for walking and wheeling across the country and, in particular, give extra opportunities for integration with the rest of the public transport network. It is game-changing. I urge the DFT to match that commitment, rather than throwing yet more money into the bottomless pit that is Greater London transport spending.
Scotland is showing that rural decarbonisation can be achieved if the will is there. Making integrated transport a key policy objective, as well as relatively modest investment, can produce huge dividends for communities that were previously isolated from the public transport network. We know that in rural communities there will always be a need for cars in a way that simply is not the case in more urban areas, but providing alternatives to private transport when it is practical to do so and ensuring that the investment is targeted in the right places can help to drive modal shift and drive down emissions, and provide a more sustainable transport system across the board into the bargain.
As I have done many times before, I commend to the Minister the work that the Scottish Government are doing and invite him to study closely what is happening in Scotland, so that the UK Government can follow Scotland’s lead and apply the lessons to rural communities here in England. The UK Government’s reluctance to invest appropriately in this area—as with so many other areas—limits Scotland’s ability to go even further even faster, and it is time for the DFT and the UK Government to get their collective finger out on these issues.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and to speak for the Opposition in a Westminster Hall debate for the very first time.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this debate and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. The hon. Member’s opening remarks underscored the importance of decarbonising our transport, especially in our rural communities, and the contributions from Members throughout have demonstrated why we need to take urgent action in this area. Indeed, decarbonising our transport sector is one of the most pressing challenges to overcome if we are to meet our net zero goals.
I am proud to represent the Wakefield constituency, which has both the city of Wakefield and a large rural community, with villages such as Netherton, Middlestown, Durkar, Hall Green and Woolley. I know first hand the challenges those areas have in accessing transport, and I understand that many of the solutions that work in cities may well not work as well in rural communities.
I will address a number of the various transport sectors that Members have referred to, but I will start with active travel, which is a sure-fire way of improving air quality, reducing congestion, improving physical health and, of course, lowering carbon emissions. Research shows that the benefit to cost ratio of investments in walking and cycling are estimated at 5.62:1.
However, one of the biggest barriers to active travel, especially in our rural communities, is safety. A recent survey found, unsurprisingly, that most people prefer to cycle where it is safe, and the same can be said for walking. Improving real and perceived safety is an effective way of encouraging more people to walk and cycle, and the Government and local councils must do what they can to improve routes and roads to facilitate that.
The Government really need to step up. In 2017, the Department for Transport provided guidance for local authorities to develop local cycling and walking infrastructure plans, but there was no funding available for that. I am pleased that many rural authorities have developed such a plan. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) recently asked a parliamentary question to find out how many councils had developed one, and the answer was just 78, which is only around a quarter of all local authorities. That is simply not good enough and the Government must do more to ensure that rural areas have these plans in place.
Another example is the Government’s consultation on personal safety measures on streets in England, which specifically covered rural streets, to seek views on how street design, maintenance and operation could be improved to make people feel safer. The consultation closed in August 2021, yet 19 months on the Government have not responded. I hope that the Minister will be able to shed some light on that.
As the hon. Member for North Devon said, many people in rural communities are very dependent on cars, and we must continue to encourage the transition to electric vehicles. We have some good momentum as we transfer away from petrol and diesel cars to electric vehicles. That is one of the primary ways to decarbonise our transport. The RAC estimates that there are now 712,000 zero-emission electric cars on our roads, along with more than 400,000 plug-in hybrids.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is right that charging points are few and far between in rural areas. However, people might not think that, given what the Government talk about. The latest figures show that we have just 37,055 public chargers in the UK at the moment. Rural communities are lagging far behind.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very valid point. As we make the transition towards electric vehicles and electric heating, there is a big issue about grid capacity and resilience in rural areas; I just do not believe that it will cope at the moment. The Government have enabled challenger companies to the traditional distribution network operators—they are called independent distribution network operators—to bring in their own infrastructure. The issue in rural areas is that metal pylons for electricity transmission are extremely controversial. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is going to happen very quickly and that, as we push the transition, decisions will have to be made about where to locate the infrastructure? We have to work with local communities, and in rural areas we need to work on the basis that the infrastructure needs to go underground.
Simon Lightwood
The hon. Member makes a valid point, and if the Government are serious about installing 300,000 charging points, they need to redouble their efforts. At this rate, we would not get to even 100,000 by the date they have set. Monthly installations would need to rise by 288% to meet that ambition.
Gavin Newlands
Just before the intervention from the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), the hon. Gentleman mentioned that rural areas are missing out in terms of the charging network. I made the point in my speech that in Scotland that is not the case. The areas with the highest penetration of public charge points per capita are Orkney, the Western Isles, Argyll and Bute, Highland, Shetland, and Dumfries and Galloway. That is because the driver was Scottish Government public investment. Down here, the UK Government have relied on private investment. Does the hon. Gentleman think that is why rural areas in England do not have the connectivity that Scotland has?
Simon Lightwood
The hon. Member makes an interesting point, and I share his concerns about the Government’s focus in achieving their targets. Obviously, this is a pressing matter for our rural communities, which are being underserved, and if drivers cannot access charging points, they will be far less likely to make the transition to electric.
In London, there are 131 charging points per 100,000 of the population, but in the south-west region the figure is a third of that—44 per 100,000. The hon. Member for Strangford will be interested to hear that the figure is only 19 per 100,000 in Northern Ireland. Indeed, more charging points were installed here in Westminster in the previous quarter than in any English region outside London. The Government must urgently come up with a plan for how they will drastically speed up the roll-out, especially in rural communities, otherwise the campaign to get people to transition their vehicles will be undermined completely.
As the shadow Minister covering buses, it would be remiss of me not to mention the vital role that the sector is playing in decarbonising our transport. That is especially the case in rural areas, where buses can be a lifeline for many, especially the elderly—connecting people with friends and family, and getting people to work, hospital or school.
As the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) said, getting to hospital appointments is really important, but the rural bus network is desperately struggling, and cuts in Government funding have hampered rural routes, leaving behind a patchy network that cannot get people from A to B. I have seen that in my constituency, where several services have been cut altogether and others run at a reduced frequency. One service, which is the only bus covering a village of about 500 people, runs only until 5 pm. Another village service runs only three buses a day.
People cannot get to work, cannot get to the shops and cannot attend hospital appointments with services like that, and they are left having to depend on taxis or the car when the bus does not turn up. That is creating what the charity CPRE calls transport deserts, whereby public transport is severely limited, which stops people being able to do basics such as shopping or meeting friends. In 2020, CPRE found that 56% of small rural towns had become transport deserts or were at risk of becoming a transport desert. I imagine that figure will have risen since then.
In recent years, local authorities have had to step in to support many rural bus services that have become commercially unviable, but reductions in their funding have meant that many routes have been lost. That is why Labour’s plans for franchising could help many rural communities and give them greater certainty over the routes they have. I continue to urge the Government to look at the proposal in more detail.
Furthermore, buses need to be transitioned from diesel. The Government announced that they would deliver 4,000 zero-emission buses in this Parliament, but, as I pointed out during Transport questions in the Chamber last week, only 341 have been ordered and just six are on our roads. At that rate, it will take 23 years to meet the Government’s target. Many bus operators serving rural routes will be relying on Government grants to decarbonise their fleets, so the lack of progress with the scheme is hampering the business planning process and efforts to push forward with bus company investments.
I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to debate this important issue. It is clear that our rural communities want to play a part in the clean transport revolution, but they need more support to do so. Whether we are talking about buses, cycling, walking or cars, there are opportunities for decarbonisation, but rural areas are lagging behind. The Government must match their rhetoric with a proper plan to deliver what they have promised, so that we can see those zero-emission buses on our roads, have enough electric charging points to encourage people to transition, and encourage people to cycle and walk more. The Government must get their act together, and quickly; otherwise, it will be our rural villages and towns that suffer the most.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
What a delight it is to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this debate on decarbonising rural transport. I am very aware of this issue as a constituency MP; in Hereford and South Herefordshire, we have many of the issues that have been described. I do not mean to disappoint my hon. Friend at the outset, but I am not going to make Treasury policy here and, least of all, as a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, a few weeks before a Budget. Nevertheless, a wide range of issues have been raised and it is important to engage with them all.
As my hon. Friend rightly noted, buses are at the centre of the public transport network, but even more so in rural areas than in many urban areas. I and colleagues recognise their important role in providing sustainable transport options and independence to people who live in the countryside. They also have an essential role to play in achieving net zero by 2050 and in creating the cleaner and healthier places to live that we all aspire to have.
On decarbonisation, I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in celebrating Devon’s recent success in joining the Government-funded ADEPT Live Labs 2 programme for decarbonising local roads in the UK. I am delighted that Devon will carry out a carbon-negative project on the A382, including the Jetty Marsh link road. That is part of a suite of corridor and place-based interventions, trialling, testing and showcasing applications in connection with the Wessex partnership, an exciting project that will be provided with more than £12 million for the three-year programme.
As colleagues will know, the national bus strategy was published in March 2021, with the long-term aim of making buses more frequent and reliable, easier to understand and use, and better co-ordinated and cheaper. The strategy asked all local transport authorities to develop a bus service improvement plan, setting out how they would improve services. It also stated that local transport plans must be clear on
“how interventions across local transport modes will drive decarbonisation in their area.”
I am delighted that Devon received £14.1 million in BSIP funding, £1.87 million of which is being targeted at bus priority measures that will benefit routes into Barnstaple and to North Devon District Hospital. I was also delighted to hear about GWR’s work in my hon. Friend’s constituency, where a bus-branch line has been introduced between Barnstaple and Lynton and Lynmouth, co-ordinating bus and rail timetables to offer a more integrated travel experience for passengers. I hope that there will be more to come in the following year.
The bus strategy makes it clear that the needs of rural transport users should be given equal consideration to those of users in urban areas. However, I recognise that it can be challenging to provide conventional bus services for rural areas, which have widely dispersed populations and consequent travel patterns that are hard to cover effectively. That is why demand-responsive services, which have been discussed today, can be used in some places to meet their needs, and work is under way to assess whether that can be more effective than traditional public transport solutions.
Colleagues will be aware of the £20 million rural mobility fund, which supports 17 innovative demand-led minibus trials in rural areas. They use app-based technologies so that passengers can book a journey through their smartphone, and intelligent software then works out the right route to pick up and drop off passengers, given the demand. The Department has made sure that the services use accessible minibuses and can still be booked through a website or with a phone call so that no one is excluded from using them.
As the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) pointed out, demand-responsive services are not the perfect solution to every challenge. Other schemes need to be trialled, and have been, but have proven not to be sustainable. A balance needs to be struck between providing a useful service that is responsive and frequent and running too much mileage cost-ineffectively, with too few passengers. That is why it is so important that each scheme should participate in a detailed monitoring and evaluation process, so that the Department can learn about the most effective approaches.
Some of the pilots use zero-emission vehicles. The scheme in Essex has been electrified since day one, providing a zero-emission demand-responsive service to rural areas around Braintree, and Surrey County Council has started to roll out its electric minibus route on its Mole Valley connect service.
On buses more broadly, colleagues will know that, in 2020, we committed to introducing 4,000 zero-emission buses and, ultimately, to achieving an all zero-emission bus fleet. It is nice to hear the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly supporting the superb achievements of Wrightbus in Northern Ireland with regard to not just electrification, but its work on the Hydroliner, using hydrogen technology.
The approach to zero-emission buses will support our climate ambitions, improve transport for local communities and support green jobs across the country. Since 2020, the Government have funded an estimated 3,452 zero-emission buses across the UK, some 1,400 of which have been supported by funding from the zero-emission bus regional areas, which has rightly been highlighted. Great progress has been made, with more than 500 buses ordered so far under the ZEBRA scheme, including 117 electric buses that have been ordered for four different local authorities, as announced in the House last week.
Buses are not the only zero-emission vehicles on our roads. It is right to think about the question of zero-emission vehicles more widely, as well as the charging infrastructure network, mentioned by several colleagues, that needs to be as accessible, affordable and secure in rural areas as elsewhere. Last March, the Government published their electric vehicle infrastructure strategy, which set out plans to accelerate the roll-out of the network. We expect at least 300,000 public charge points to be installed across the UK by 2030. There are already over 37,000 open-access public chargers on UK roads, with more than 600 new chargers added to our road network each month on average, and public charging devices have more than tripled in the past four years. That is in addition to the hundreds of thousands of charge points in homes and workplaces. We believe that we are on track to meet local expectations.
Gavin Newlands
I like the Minister’s comments on the ZEBRA scheme, even though it has been an utter shambles from start to finish. Scotland has more zero-emission buses on the road in a country that is a tenth of the size.
On chargers, the Government launched Project Rapid, and the Labour Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood), mentioned the number of chargers in the UK. Scotland already has 73% more rapid chargers per head than the rest of the UK. In the last quarter of last year, the number increased by nearly 15%, more than double the rate at which England increased its rapid chargers—the east and west midlands rate was 4.3%, Yorkshire was 5% and the south-east was 3.3%. Project Rapid needs to change its name, does it not?
Jesse Norman
There is no doubt that the question of how we get lots of rapid chargers into motorway service areas and other parts of the trunk network is complex, because it requires long-term solutions based on translating large amounts of electricity through distribution network operators and the national grid into those areas. I was slightly surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman bragging about the Scottish Government’s achievements. He may want to look at the Daily Business published in August last year, which said that Scotland was “bottom” of the EV charging league for growth and described that as
“an embarrassing blow to the country that hosted the COP26”.
The hon. Gentleman should look not just at the number that have been installed, which perhaps is not surprising given the level of income per head that Scotland receives under the Barnett formula. If my county of Herefordshire was miraculously and sadly disentangled from its current place and floated north to abut on to Scotland, the rate of funding per head would go up by over £2,000, so perhaps it is not so surprising that the funding settlement is different and that has different effects. The Scottish record is not one to be proud of as regards the growth of charge points, and he may want to look again at the numbers he described.
We have also been looking at public and industry funding to support local authorities with the roll-out of charge points. Just last month, we announced a further £56 million of public industry funding. In Devon, there are currently 442 public charge points, of which over 100 are rapid and above, which is pretty much in line with the UK average per person and possibly even slightly higher in relation to rapid charging. That is a good start, but there is plenty still to do.
Helen Morgan
I reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) about grid capacity. Rural areas are being asked to look at replacing a lot of oil-fired boilers with electric alternatives, and obviously, we need to address electric charging points, but grid capacity is a fundamental restraining problem in rural areas. What are the Minister’s thoughts on how improvements to that infrastructure can be speeded up?
Jesse Norman
It is important to put this into perspective. One advantage of rural areas is that, in many cases, more so than in urban areas, people have driveways or accessible areas where they can put in charging points. Of course, domestic charging points are growing rapidly—vastly faster, as one might expect through private investment, than in the last year or two. It is a rapidly escalating curve, and rural areas have a great advantage over urban areas when it comes to charging electric vehicles. Rural areas will also benefit as improvements in technology increase vehicle range and reduce costs and range anxiety. It is a picture that we have reason to be optimistic about without in any sense being complacent about the need to continue to make rapid progress.
Jonathan Edwards
I want to reiterate my initial intervention on the Labour Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood), and the point made by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. The concern is that the grid as it is will not accommodate everybody charging their cars at home; it will not cope. It would require significant extra infrastructure to transmit the electricity into rural areas. If we did that, we would put pylons everywhere and that becomes controversial. One solution in the United States is to use transport corridors—roads and rail—and go underground along those routes, which can be far more cost-effective. Of course, going underground is far more expensive than overground pylons.
There needs to be strategic thinking. These issues are devolved in Wales. Planning matters are devolved, as they are in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but there needs to be co-ordination and some thinking about how we can create the resilience and capacity for rural areas without desecrating them.
Jesse Norman
I completely agree with the hon. Member that any solution needs to respect the beauty and integrity of the area concerned. That is absolutely right, and I thank him for his suggestion, which I believe has received some consideration, but I will check with my officials.
There is a wider point. Of course, the demands on the grid are changing over time, but we have been given no reason to think that they are unsustainable. The attraction of much modern technology is that it allows much more load balancing in the timing of when cars are charged. We expect that to be a valuable source of strength and stability in the grid as we go forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon is a passionate advocate for active travel. She knows that the Department published the second cycling and walking investment strategy in the summer of last year, which includes new and updated objectives, such as increased levels of walking, including walking to school and doubling the levels of cycling. We expect to invest over £850 million in active travel between 2020 and 2023, which is a record amount of funding. As she knows, last month we announced an active travel fund of £200 million to improve walking and cycling routes and to boost local usage and economic development.
The benefits are not just economic, as has been rightly highlighted. There are also the benefits of air quality and improved health, and they play a vital role in decarbonisation. Funding is important, and we have talked about that, but it is only one part of the solution in rural areas. We also need to support increased capability in delivery, and that is why the Government are providing Devon County Council with capability funding to support the development of its county-wide rural trail—its cycling and walking infrastructure plan.
I was delighted to open the offices of Active Travel England in York a few weeks ago with Chris Boardman, our national active travel commissioner, and Danny Williams, the chief executive. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon will know from her APPG, those are people of the highest quality and the ATE is a very important development—indeed, a milestone—in how we think about the adequate and highly effective provision of active travel infrastructure and standards.
There is a mixed picture in terms of need, but not a mixed picture in terms of the commitment, energy and drive that we are trying to bring to the entire portfolio across the range of the different interventions and modes in the cause of decarbonising our country and our economy.
Selaine Saxby
It has been a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I thank the Minister for his response and for his Department’s recognition of rurality, because it is the first time that a Department has focused on that in its funding decision. I very much hope that with him at the helm, it can do more in some other areas that we have touched on this morning, because I know that the constituents I represent care deeply about their environment and are really passionate about being able to decarbonise their transport networks. For that to happen, it is important to find rural solutions that work and deliver better value for money. Although I fully respect that the Minister could not possibly comment on things going on in the Treasury ahead of the Budget, I hope that he might have a quiet word to say that a longer-term funding solution would deliver far better value for money in areas such as rural transportation.
I want to reiterate points from colleagues, which perhaps the Minister could pass on. I did not focus too much on the grid, because it is not in his portfolio, but I fully agree with hon. Members’ comments that the grid is a real concern if we are to deliver an electric transport solution. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) talked about hubs and the number of bus changes that people have to make on longer journeys in rural Britain. Although I warmly welcome the Minister’s observation on services to the hospital in Barnstaple, most of those services involve a change at Barnstaple bus station, where the toilets are still closed. As we look to rural solutions, we need to find better ways to ensure that such hubs work. I know that, like me, he is passionate about active travel, but we all accept that we will not do all our journeys in rural Britain on a bicycle. However, we could do the opening or closing mile of those journeys on one if our hubs worked better.
I thank hon. Members for their time and participation, and I particularly thank the Minister for his response.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered decarbonising rural transport.
Post-16 Education: Bolsover
(1 year, 2 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
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention with 30-minute debates.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered post-16 education in Bolsover constituency.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am sure by now that the Government are well aware of my campaign to bring post-16 education back to the Bolsover constituency. I am delighted that the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) is responding. I know that this is not necessarily his area in the Department. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb), who has heard me make this argument on many occasions. I have been fortunate to have meetings with the Secretary of State to raise this important issue, and I welcome the opportunity again to set out the reasons why this is such a vital endeavour.
This issue is close to my heart. I have spoken previously about the importance of a good education and the effect it has had on my life. It is during those years that our lives are shaped. I was fortunate to become the person that I am at sixth form: I made friends for life; I discovered my love of economics and politics; I was able to come out and be happy as an individual; and when I lost my mum, I was looked after by my teachers at sixth form, who became like family. I want that experience to be shared by those in Bolsover, so that they can live their lives to the full. Just as I owe that to the fantastic mentoring I received at school, we all owe it to the next generation of students, so that they may have the best opportunities in life.
I grew up in Doncaster—an area with very similar demographics and skill prospects as Bolsover. I know at first hand the difference a quality education can have on young people, and the opportunities it opens. I know the effect that bringing post-16 education back to Bolsover will have on the hardworking students there. The Redhill Academy Trust, which runs The Bolsover School in my constituency, has submitted an application for a sixth form to be based in Bolsover town. I wholeheartedly support that application, and was more than happy to contribute to the bid and provide support wherever possible.
For a long time, my constituency failed to receive the investment it deserves. Children are feeling the impact of that on their educational opportunities. Countless parents have told me that they want their child to have a better education than they were able to receive. Currently, just 21% of people in Bolsover have a degree level or higher qualification, compared with 42.8% nationally; and 9% of people in my constituency hold no formal qualification at all. Bolsover is ranked as the most deprived area in Derbyshire, according to the combined indices of deprivation. It has the highest rate of child poverty in Derbyshire, and the lowest gross disposable household income in the county.
Levelling up is vital to my constituents, which means investment in housing, infrastructure and high-skilled jobs, and ensuring that we have a skilled population, underpinned by an ambition to capitalise on the opportunities available to them. I welcome the Government’s ongoing plans to do that, but if we want to ensure that Bolsover has the long-term prospects necessary to create a real shift towards a brighter future, the key will be improving educational opportunities for the current and next generations of students. Three main factors are driving the need for a new post-16 education provider in Bolsover: the lack of existing provisions within a reasonable distance; the over-subscription of existing schools; and the lack of choice for students wanting to pursue an academic form of education.
My constituency currently has no further education providers. Students at The Bolsover School have three options for post-16 education that are within one hour via public transport; two are rated as “requires improvement” and the third is over-subscribed. The need for a quality post-16 alternative that is accessible to the residents of my constituency’s towns and villages is one of the most common concerns raised by local parents. I am well aware of the issue and am fortunate to have spent time as a governor at The Bolsover School. In May last year, I mentioned in the main Chamber an email that I received from a concerned constituent, which I think is worth repeating:
“There is no 6th form available at The Bolsover School and so pupils wishing to do A levels have an expensive bus ride in order to get anywhere. For instance it costs around £650 a year if your child is successful to get a place at St Mary’s High School in Chesterfield and the choice of courses at Chesterfield college are quite limited.”
That is just one example from hundreds of parents who have spoken to me in person or contacted my office to outline their concerns about the lack of post-16 provision in the constituency.
Netherthorpe School, the closest sixth-form provider for students living in Bolsover, is currently over-subscribed by 251 pupils. So what do the committed and passionate pupils of Bolsover do? Well, a third travel from Bolsover for up to an hour and 33 minutes—not including the time it takes to get to and from the bus stop, and waiting for the next bus—to go to Tupton Hall School, a sixth form that is also part of the Redhill Academy Trust. The children of Bolsover should not need to travel this immense distance just to seek the education they so desperately want and deserve. Those pupils lose a minimum of three hours and six minutes every single day. That time would be far better spent on additional education or partaking in after school curricula; after school activities are an incredibly important part of the education experience, and every child should have the opportunity to get involved in them.
Ten of the 13 major settlements in the north of my constituency—including Glapwell, Langwith, Palterton, Scarcliffe and Shirebrook—would be better served by the creation of a new sixth form in Bolsover. I have received a lot of correspondence from parents who are concerned about the price of sending their children to school. Taking away that cost is an important and tangible benefit of opening a sixth form in Bolsover that Ministers take into consideration when discussing current free school bids, and it is particularly important when it comes to the proposed location of the Bolsover sixth form. The catchment area would cater for a greater than average number of children from disadvantaged backgrounds, with an estimated 32% entitled to free school meals compared to 22% nationally. Some 16% of pupils will have special educational needs compared to 12.6% nationally, and 36% access the pupil premium. This is a real opportunity to support those who are most in need of support.
The Redhill Academy Trust also has a fantastic record of ensuring that its students are well prepared for higher education; 71% of post-16 graduates from the Redhill Academy Trust progressed to university, compared to the national and local authority average of 52%. This proposal will increase the number of disadvantaged students going to university.
There is no solution other than to tackle the issues of capacity and travel times. The free school bid explains that although most pupils attending the sixth form would come directly from The Bolsover School, the catchment area would also include the majority of north Derbyshire and parts of Nottinghamshire, which, as the Government will know, are both educational investment areas. Crucially, it will also include the Heritage School in Clowne, Shirebrook Academy and the surrounding villages, all of which are in desperate need of greater education provision and would directly benefit from a sixth form in Bolsover.
The current issue of capacity will not ease in the coming years. Bolsover District Council has identified Bolsover North, Clowne and Whitwell as the three strategic sites for its preferred spatial strategy—all in prime distance for a new sixth form. To accommodate growth in the region, these areas have already begun to see greater investment in housing and, sometimes, infrastructure. Over the coming years, we should expect to see 1,800 additional dwellings in Clowne Garden Village and 1,000 in Bolsover North, as well as another 700 in sites across Bolsover town and 600 at Brookvale in Shirebrook. There will be another 500 dwellings at the former Whitwell colliery site and 300 houses on the former Creswell colliery site. Those must all be taken into consideration.
I hope that I have set out the quite clear and desperate need for additional post-16 provision in Bolsover. I will touch briefly on why a sixth form is the right type of educational setting to resolve the issue. Children in Bolsover are suffering from a severe lack of choice when it comes to the type of education they want to pursue. While I understand—indeed, greatly support—the push for more technical education across the UK, I urge the Government to carefully consider that in these circumstances, what the children of Bolsover require right now is the greater provision of academic education.
When deciding to apply for a free school in Bolsover, the Redhill Academy Trust chose to make it a sixth form with very good reason: there is excess demand for a local sixth form. In 2020-21, only 23% of students at The Bolsover School went on to study at a sixth form or sixth-form college, compared to the English average of 52%. These figures are reflected in the other secondary schools in my constituency, but we should be careful not to infer from that figure that less than a quarter of students from the school want to attend an academic education. We have already seen that students are willing to travel great distances to very competitive and over-subscribed schools to get the education they want and deserve, and those who cannot afford to do so are limited in their options and prospects. This education relies on children getting one of the very competitive school places and parents being able to afford the associated costs. As noted in the free school bid, travel times and costs are the main barriers to post-16 education in Bolsover. Those barriers can and should be removed.
Also highlighted in the free school bid is an outlook for the future of jobs in Bolsover. A high number of jobs locally are at risk because of automation, and there remains a high proportion of low-skilled and low-earning jobs, with high rates of long-term unemployment. That seriously needs to be addressed.
The east midlands is home to fantastic firms, such as Rolls-Royce and its small nuclear reactor production plant in Derby, and the UK Atomic Energy Authority with its fusion energy site in West Burton. Both are working hard to make the east midlands a global centre for green technology. We have an opportunity to ensure that the future workforce can capitalise on that and benefit from future investment in the sectors. The way to do that is to promote the provision of important subjects, such as computer science, physics, chemistry, maths and further maths—all key education areas for the proposed sixth form in Bolsover, and all currently under-subscribed locally.
To briefly quote the bid, the Bolsover sixth form would
“improve outcomes for young people in the region and help strengthen Derbyshire's and Nottinghamshire's economies, as both areas are known for their manufacturing and engineering sectors, as well as recently their investment into low carbon technologies.”
That does not mean that a sixth form in Bolsover would not also supply technical education. In fact, the Redhill Academy Trust is working closely with the University of Derby to ensure that the skills provided will be aligned with the university’s drive to improve both technical and academic education in the region.
Supporting the Redhill Academy Trust’s application for a sixth form in Bolsover, the absolutely brilliant Professor Kathryn Mitchell, vice-chancellor of the University of Derby, has stated:
“The University of Derby is delighted to support the application for the Sixth Form at The Bolsover School. The ambition of the school to serve its community with high quality academic and technical qualifications is both exciting for their young people and essential for the vibrancy of the regional economy.
The University of Derby is delighted to be a central partner in enhancing the school to explore and deliver T levels and pathways to apprenticeships—something which we have a strong track record in, with the recent opening of the Nuclear Skills Academy in partnership with Rolls-Royce and our commitment to Nursing apprenticeships.
If we are to address the chronic skills shortages that currently exist within the United Kingdom, developing, in partnership, a pipeline of talented young people who are equipped with the skills for tomorrow is essential for both national and regional prosperity.”
The Government will no doubt be aware of my passion for this cause, but I am not the only person who is passionate about it. Alex Dale, the cabinet member for education at Derbyshire County Council, summarised the The Bolsover School’s bid fantastically when he spoke in support of it. He set out the political will to get this across the line:
“It is absolutely clear that there is very strong public and political support for securing a 6th form provision in Bolsover. Not only will a new provision remove barriers for those who already have a desire to study A-levels, but it will also no doubt inspire more young people to take up A-levels and go on to university than might otherwise have been the case.
In 2021, the Conservatives were re-elected to run Derbyshire County Council with the largest majority we have ever secured, winning over 2/3s of the seats on the Council—including 4, for the first time ever, within the Bolsover constituency.
Our manifesto included a commitment that we would offer ‘support for the campaign for a Sixth Form in the Bolsover District to raise aspirations and ensure continuing education is an option for all’. It is absolutely clear therefore that there is a strong political mandate for making this happen.”
There is clear support from students, parents, teachers and school governance for the provision of a sixth form. The people want it. There is support for it. Frankly, the Government have the easy job of simply saying yes to the application. To make that easier, I will touch on why this bid should be so attractive to the Government.
If the Government remain committed to levelling up long-forgotten areas such as Bolsover, accepting this bid will prove it. If the Government wish to remain on track to meet their net zero commitments and their ambition to turn the UK into a world leader in green technology, approving this bid will ensure that there are the necessary skills to make that happen. If the Government want to close the skills gap between the most advantaged and least fortunate in this country, there is no better way to do that than by investing in our children’s education, approving this bid. and bringing a sixth form to Bolsover. I could go on, but I think I have made my point.
Redhill Academy Trust summarised the need for a new sixth form in Bolsover in its application:
“We believe that there is a great need for the new Sixth Form in Bolsover, due to poor public transport routes, the lack of good academic places at other local providers and the need to improve KS5”—
key stage 5—
“outcomes for young people in the town.”
I fail to see how anybody can object to addressing those key issues, but we must now wait for the Government to confirm whether they will take this opportunity and give the children of Bolsover the education that they deserve. Until then, I will of course continue to badger every Minister unfortunate enough to pass me in the corridors of this great place.
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
It is an honour to serve under you, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), not just on securing this debate, but on being such an incredible champion of education and skills in his constituency. He is known widely in the House of Commons for championing causes, and the people of Bolsover are without doubt lucky to have him as their representative. He spoke movingly about how education was a ladder of opportunity for him, and I absolutely understand that he wants a ladder of opportunity for every child in his constituency.
It is only right that we focus on ensuring that every young person has access to high-quality post-16 education and training options so that they can reach their full potential and gain the skills that employers need. I know that my hon. Friend has met the Minister—Baroness Barran—and the Secretary of State for Education, and I believe he has had other ministerial meetings along the way, so today’s debate is very timely. I will talk generally about education and skills in his constituency before coming to the specific issue that he mentioned.
The Government have an ambitious plan to transform post-16 education and training, so that people can develop the skills needed to get good jobs and ensure national productivity. My hon. Friend spoke passionately about vocational and technical education; he knows that there are a wide range of opportunities through T-levels, apprenticeships and higher technical qualifications, as well as traditional A-level routes. T-levels are particularly rigorous post-16 technical qualifications that will pave the way for young people to access skilled employment, higher apprenticeships or further study, and I hope that many learners in Bolsover take up those opportunities.
There are 16 T-level subjects being taught around the country, and a growing number of new T-level students will start their courses in September. I am pleased to say that from September 2023, four colleges within travelling distance of Bolsover will provide T-levels. Chesterfield College, which is around 7 miles away, will offer T-levels in construction, education, digital and health. Additionally, new employer-led institutes of technology will offer higher-level technical education to help close the skill gaps in key areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The University of Derby is the lead partner in an institute of technology proposal, and the future IOT and its partners will be able to consider expanding into the Bolsover area or other cold spots if that is deemed appropriate.
I want to take this opportunity to reflect on the delivery of high-quality provision at further education colleges local to the Bolsover constituency. Each of the three colleges is assessed as good by Ofsted, and they have developed strong partnerships with both local and national employers. Chesterfield College and West Nottinghamshire College offer a broad curriculum from entry level to higher education, including apprenticeships and A-levels.
My hon. Friend mentioned the education investment areas, including Derbyshire. These are the local authorities in England in which attainment is weakest, as well as local authorities that contain an opportunity area or have been identified as having high potential for rapid improvement. As an EIA, Derbyshire will benefit from access to the £86 million in trust capacity funding that is being targeted at education investment areas over the next three years, and to the levelling-up premium, which offers tax-free payments of up to £3,000 per year to maths, physics, chemistry and computing teachers. There is also £150 million for extending the Connect the Classroom programme, which upgrades schools that fall below our wi-fi and connectivity standards.
My hon. Friend acknowledged that young people have the choice to follow an academic programme of study at a nearby school sixth form; the majority of those pupils choose to study at one of three local schools, all of which were judged by Ofsted to have good sixth-form provision. I absolutely acknowledge his support for the new 16-to-19 free school in his constituency of Bolsover. The current mainstream application round will approve up to 15 new schools, and will focus on the areas with the greatest need. Although I am unable to discuss the specifics of the application—as he rightly mentioned, these decisions are being made by Minister Barran—I can assure him that all the applications received are being considered very carefully.
I wholeheartedly commend my hon. Friend for his continued support for a 16-to-19 free school in his constituency, and for ensuring that young people in Bolsover have access to high-quality academic provision. I was pleased to hear of his support, and of his engagement with the proposers, the Redhill Academy Trust, which, as he mentioned, is a multi-academy trust in Bolsover. He also mentioned the support from his council, a local cabinet member and the university. That message will be heard loud and clear.
It is right that young people in Bolsover should have the opportunity to achieve their full potential. The Government’s priority is to ensure a range of high-quality post-16 education options. Opening new free schools is one of the Government’s policies. We must achieve that aim for all young people, whatever their background and wherever they live. The application is progressing through the published process, as my hon. Friend knows. I can assure him that it is being carefully considered against the published criteria for setting up new schools. We expect the Secretary of State to announce the successful applications later this year.
I will ensure that Minister Barran sees the brilliant case that my hon. Friend has made and sees the Hansard report of this debate. I have no doubt that he will have further meetings with Education Ministers to discuss these issues. I commend his continued commitment to improving outcomes in his constituency, and his desire to see 16-to-19 provision in Bolsover. As Skills Minister, I am passionate about technical and vocational education, but as he rightly said, people want academic education as well. That is very important, and we want parity of esteem. He spoke very powerfully about that.
My hon. Friend has raised important concerns. He spoke about transport problems and made the point about bus journeys. Although it may be said that the journey is half an hour or whatever, it can actually be much longer, because pupils have to get to the bus stop. They then rely on the buses. In my area, Harlow, bus routes for students have sadly been cut, so I have a clear understanding of these issues.
To conclude, the Department for Education remains committed to ensuring that everyone has access to high-quality post-16 opportunities, so that they can fulfil their potential, no matter where they live. I again congratulate my hon. Friend on the powerful case he has made.
Question put and agreed to.
Civil Service Pay
(1 year, 2 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
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the civil service pay remit and the future of pay negotiations.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard, in this extremely important debate. This is my second Westminster Hall debate on public sector pay and the threat of industrial action as a result of the Government’s decisions in recent months. As we approach Budget day, I want to use the debate to drill down into one area of public sector pay: the civil service.
The civil service employs around half a million people across the UK, ranging from Whitehall mandarins to work coaches in the Department for Work and Pensions and prison officers in the Ministry of Justice. Those people carry out absolutely vital services, and I believe that the long-term trajectory of pay settlements in the civil service exposes the Government’s intentions and the Conservative approach more generally. The civil service pay remit is a political imposition by the Government on the incomes of hundreds of thousands of employees, and the effect of the past 13 years of civil service pay remit decisions has been to create a crisis in civil service pay. What we are witnessing is clearly an intentional and systematic downgrading of the remuneration of work in the civil service. Without doubt, it is part of a Conservative agenda to shrink the state, shrink the share of the economy allocated to public spending, and shrink the share of the economy that rewards labour costs.
The UK civil service has had the lowest pay increases in the public sector since the election of the coalition Government. Analysis of the reduction in civil service pay suggests that salaries have fallen by between 12% and a staggering 23% in real terms at each grade of the civil service since 2010. The Public and Commercial Services Union has said that this year’s pay remit means that members are missing out on at least £2,800 this year, and research by the Prospect trade union has revealed that since 2010-11 a civil servant on a median wage has lost around £10,500, which is staggering.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Some 49.7%, or nearly half, of civil servants earn less than £30,000. Many are struggling with the impact of rising inflation and living costs, and rising travel costs to reach work. Does she share my concern that the continued undervaluing of the civil service will lead to officials leaving and a worrying potential exodus of experience and expertise?
Beth Winter
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, and I will come on to recruitment and retention later.
There have been pay freezes and pay caps over the last 13 years. The situation has worsened in the past 12 months because of high rates of inflation and the lower allowance in the civil service compared with other public sector settlements. Civil servants had a paltry 2% pay rise imposed on them in the past year, which is more than 10% below the retail price index at its peak and almost 10% below the consumer prices index.
Civil servants, teachers and nurses have all suffered under the Conservatives’ low-pay agenda, and have all received a completely unacceptable and avoidable real-terms pay cut. The extent of the Conservative Government’s low-pay agenda is laid bare by the high number of civil service staff in receipt of the minimum wage. It is an absolute travesty that over a quarter of DWP staff are paid so little that the national living wage floor increase this April will push their salaries up. It is worth noting that when many Departments contract work, they insist that people get paid at least the real living wage as determined by the Living Wage Foundation, yet the civil service itself point blank refuses to guarantee to pay civil servants at least the real living wage.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and emphasising that point. Does she share my concern, and that of many others, that the statistics she has just quoted are the reason for an increasing number of civil servants using food banks in order to survive week by week?
Beth Winter
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and I fully agree. I will come later to the stark figures on the use of food banks by civil service staff.
As I said, the past 13 years of pay freezes and pay caps have slashed the value of civil service pay. There is also the current civil service pay remit process, which is completely unacceptable. The FDA union describes the current system as “entirely flawed and incoherent” and as one that completely fails to allow for a strategic approach to pay, reward or meaningful negotiations.
Repeated pay cuts cannot simply be imposed without industrial disputes. Pay needs a negotiation between employers and employees. The current civil service pay remit process does not even offer the façade of employee involvement through the trade unions that even the increasingly discredited public sector pay review bodies are meant to offer. The end of national pay bargaining in the civil service by the Thatcher and Major Governments and the introduction of departmental and agency-delegated responsibility for setting pay continued the Tory ideological attack on the powers of the trade unions.
In the “Continuity and Change” White Paper, John Major’s Tory Government set out how, previously,
“centralised pay systems covered groups of staff whatever department they worked in, with settlements negotiated nationally between the Treasury and the unions.”
Even the claim that pay is delegated is a fallacy. Pay continues to be determined centrally. Ministers can, and do, still determine pay in these different bargaining units. That is evidenced by George Osborne’s imposition of a two-year pay freeze in the civil service, which he did without permission from the delegated bargaining areas. He was allowed to do that. That has been the approach for the past 30 years. It now applies to more than 200 bargaining units across the civil service, from the DWP to the National Museum of Wales. It is not logical, practical or cost-effective, and is certainly not fair. The fragmentation of the pay system has been described by the former Minister for the Cabinet Office, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), in his evidence to the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs as the “balkanisation” of pay. I would like to hear whether the Minister agrees with that comment.
What is the cost to the Government, both in finance and efficiency, given the duplication of human resource process, of changes to payroll procedures across so many units? It is just not cost-effective. Although civil service Departments essentially follow the same grading structure, the salaries paid at different levels by different Departments mean increasing disparities, resulting in significant inequalities. There has been an entrenchment of inequalities that existed in the 1990s, and an opening up of new gaps that did not even exist then. The PCS union has argued that as a result there has been an entrenchment of historic gender and ethnicity pay caps, and the development of pay differentials across Departments for the same grades. That includes women being paid less than men, and the pay process has not allowed them to break out of that. Last year, Civil Service World reported how the civil service’s median gender pay gap had widened for the first time in six years, with a gender gap in average hourly earnings of 11.3%. In most cases, where large median pay gaps exist, it is because there is a higher proportion of men in senior and more highly paid roles, or of women in more junior roles. The PCS has argued that, as civil servants are increasingly being co-located into regional hubs organised by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and by the Government Property Agency, the difference in pay between staff at the same grades is becoming increasingly apparent—so much so that the PCS has said that it is preparing to begin large-scale equal pay challenges, bringing cases on behalf of women in one bargaining unit against men in another.
Ethnicity pay gaps are also a significant cause for concern. Black members of staff are disproportionately employed in lower paid areas of the civil service. Only this morning, we heard shocking evidence of racism in the Cabinet Office from trade unions giving evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Regional inequalities have also been identified. For example, a median civil servant at administration assistant or officer level at the Ministry of Defence earns just over £20,000, whereas their equivalent in the Welsh Government earns around £24,500, nearly as much as the median executive officer, a grade higher, at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
The evidence clearly shows that the pay structures across the civil service are unequal, dysfunctional, broken and in urgent need of reform. The situation hinders the delivery of an efficient service, so the transfer of staff between Departments is complicated in the absence of a uniform and fair pay system, while the unfair pay differentials create obstacles to achieving effective joint working within or between Departments. As others have mentioned, poor pay and terms and conditions within the civil service are also resulting in recruitment and retention problems, which, in turn, are also very costly for the Government.
Analysis by the Institute for Government reveals that turnover in the civil service is the highest it has been for a decade, and that the recruitment and retention of highly skilled staff is a particular cause for concern. It stated:
“The National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee, Ministers and civil servants have described how a lack of specialist skills in areas from digital to finance has contributed to delays, cost overruns or policy and operational failures.”
Research commissioned by Prospect and the FDA this year concluded that in order to ensure that the civil service can recruit and retain the high numbers of staff required, it is essential that the Government urgently address the poor levels of civil service pay. That is all having a significant detrimental impact on staff.
In PACAC this morning, we discussed the civil service people’s survey and we heard shocking evidence of harassment, bullying, discrimination and racism in the civil service. I will just quote some startling figures from a recent PCS survey of its members: 85% said that the cost of living crisis has impacted their mental and physical health; over half fear losing their home; 40% say that they have used credit to pay for essential shopping; and almost a fifth say that they have missed work because of their inability to afford transport or fuel. As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) has said, 40,000 are using food banks, and 47,000 people are claiming universal credit because pay is so low. That is totally unacceptable and that is why civil service staff have been driven—forced—to take industrial action.
Nobody makes the decision to take industrial action lightly; it is very much a last resort. It is not a choice but a necessity that has been forced on civil service staff. Since December, PCS has been engaged in a series of targeted industrial action across many Departments, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the DWP and Border Force. That is why we will see over 130,000 civil servants take strike action on Budget day next week in an attempt to make this Government listen and improve their offer. PCS is not alone. The poor pay outcomes have also led the Prospect union to ballot its members and they have also overwhelmingly voted for industrial action. Even the fast-streamers organised by the FDA have voted for industrial action.
I am very conscious that some Government Members have sought many a time to assert that rising wages cause inflation by creating a wage spiral. I am confident that the Minister is aware that that does not stand up to scrutiny. Research by James Meadway for the General Federation of Trade Unions, cited in a recent pamphlet, said:
“Whatever it is that is driving inflation in the UK, it is not high wages. Wages have been low for a long time and are now falling very fast.”
Independent analysis commissioned from Incomes Data Research by Prospect and the FDA argues that,
“public sector pay rises might only lead to an increase in inflation if they at least matched or were higher than current rates of inflation, and then only if private sector employers followed suit, and then only if these employers then decided to deliberately pass on this aspect of increasing costs directly to consumers in the form of price rises.”
If the Government truly believe that they do not have the resources to fund the pay rise, they need to make it clear they will end some of the tax inequalities that continue to let the wealthiest off the hook and will introduce a new measure of wealth taxation.
Previously, I have highlighted what such measures might include, including the equalisation of the rate of capital gains tax with income tax, which, in a single measure, would raise up to £14 billion. The money is there; it is a political choice not to use it. The Government can afford to pay civil servants, all public sector workers and everybody who has been forced to strike a decent wage.
I will move to a conclusion. There are a number of issues that need addressing and I would welcome the Minister’s response to them. We need an audit of pay differentials impacting gender and ethnicity across Departments, an audit of pay differentials at the same employment grades across Departments, a grouping of agencies around their main Government Departments to harmonise pay arrangements and an acceptance of the need for pay remits that move the civil service towards national pay rates, which will establish moving floors at different grades and the safeguarding of differentials between grades. That should be a step on the way to the re-establishment of a national pay bargaining process that ends the refusal to negotiate with trade unions.
Indeed, Labour’s deputy leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and her predecessor on the employment rights brief, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), have set out that fair pay agreements will be negotiated through sectoral collective bargaining, reversing the decades-long decline in collective bargaining coverage. I am not asserting that that is a manifesto commitment to national pay bargaining for the civil service, but it is clear evidence of the direction in which the party intends to move. I refer people to the Labour party’s excellent “ A New Deal for Working People” employment rights Green Paper for more information.
Such an approach is essential in order to tackle the problems of insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement, low pay and the raft of other issues that I outlined in my speech. Urgent action is also required, with the Government’s commitment to hold constructive talks with PCS to resolve the current dispute. In next week’s Budget announcement, we need a revision of the 2022-23 civil service pay remit that reflects an understanding that a 10% rise and a living wage of at least £15 an hour are wholly affordable—wholly in this Government’s grasp—and do not require a reduction in service provision. We need a reformed pay bargaining process for the civil service and across the public sector, and an end to the Tory low-pay agenda of holding down public sector pay. Diolch yn fawr, Mr Pritchard.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak, just to help the Chair—I think you all are, thank you. I call Chris Stephens.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly my position as chair of the PCS parliamentary group. I thought I would do that, Mr Pritchard, because we usually hear shouts from the Conservative Benches about the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but I notice that those Members are on strike today. No one from the Conservative Back Benches is here to take part.
Who are the heroes of the pandemic? I would suggest that among those heroes are those who worked in the civil service, such as those who were in the Department for Work and Pensions when there was an explosion of universal credit claims that had to be processed and of people to be paid on time. It was those people who made sure that universal credit payments were paid on time, helping those in need. The heroes of the pandemic include those who worked in HMRC, who had to make sure that businesses, including small businesses, received furlough payments to help ensure that the economic wheels were turning. They include those in the civil service who put together the rules and regulations to update the public on what to do and how to comply with covid regulations, to ensure that the public were safe and protected.
As such, what is astonishing about this debate—as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), who secured the debate, has outlined—is that the civil service seems to be treated worst of all across the public sector. Frankly, that is a disgrace. I want to concentrate on the economic case for giving civil servants and other public sector workers a real-terms pay rise. I note that in his demands for the Budget, my good friend the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), the leader of the SNP group, has said that we must have pay rises that match inflation. It is not public sector pay that increases inflation: it is prices. Food inflation is currently around 13%, yet we are offering some public sector workers 2% or 3%: that is not going to help them feed their families, and it is not going to help them going forward. We need to look very seriously at this situation.
The Conservative Government keep telling us that they are the party of efficiency and small government, yet they allow a situation in which there are over 200 separate pay negotiations across the civil service for those who work for the Westminster Government. The fact that so many different pay negotiations are being carried out across the civil service is something that you really could not make up. If the Conservative Government allow that situation to develop going forward, they are opening themselves up to equal pay claims, and I hope the Minister will tell us how they are going to cut the number of pay negotiations. There should be one set of pay negotiations covering those who work for the Westminster Government.
I know that many colleagues want in, Mr Pritchard, so the final point I will make is this: if people are talking, they are not walking. Far too often, we hear Government Members blaming society’s problems on not just refugees, as we heard in the main Chamber earlier, but trade unions. “It is the trade unions’ fault that we have so many societal problems at the moment”—what a risible argument! If the Government keep pursuing that level of tactic and introducing such rubbish legislation, such as the so-called minimum service levels legislation, it is only going to intensify the situation and make it worse. I want to hear from the Government how they are actually going to sit around the table and enter into meaningful negotiations like other Administrations do, including the Scottish Government.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
I will have to enforce an informal time limit of five minutes.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) and the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) have comprehensively covered most of the issues. There is little to say, apart from maybe the Minister saying, “I give up and we’ll go and sort this out.” I also declare an interest as a member of the PCS parliamentary group. There is no financial relationship as such; it is not even affiliated with the Labour party, although I keep trying.
I want to get across to the Minister what the Government need to face up to. In recent years, the Government have come for civil servants’ pensions. They lost in court over that, but they have not even addressed the legal judgment. In addition, they cut their redundancy payments, and now they are insulting them with a 2% pay offer. As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West said, these are the people who worked throughout the pandemic, and were applauded by Government Ministers for what they did. I remember the then Chancellor applauding HMRC and Department for Work and Pensions staff for the role that they played, many of them working from home. And then they get the insult of a 2% pay increase. It is no wonder that, for the first time in civil service history, there will be 100,000 civil servants on strike in a week’s time.
The Government rely on the myth that it is nothing to do with them, and all to do with the Departments that are negotiating. That myth has been exposed time and time again. The pay remit is set by central Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said, the Government hide behind ludicrous pay structures. Having 200 individual units is not just inefficient but completely counterproductive. The result is that the civil service is demoralised, and it is failing to retain and recruit in many sectors. At the same time, I never expected public servants to be paid such low real pay. We have seen the issues with food banks, and some workers not even being able to afford the transport costs to get to work. Collectively, as a Parliament, we are the employers. Parliament holds Government to account; we all have to shoulder a responsibility. The Government have to recognise just how serious the situation is. They cannot underestimate the depth of anger that is out there among civil servants, their families and their communities.
The Government have hidden behind the high cost of settling at inflation-proofing; they themselves have used the mythical figure of £28 billion. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has already said that there is 4% to 5% within the Government’s existing budget structures for 2022-23, so the cost to get to inflation-proofing may be more like £15 billion to £17 billion. I will not go into detail, but others have pointed out how much the Government will get back in tax, national insurance contributions and so on. As a result of that, we are talking about single figures in terms of the cost to ensure that civil servants are inflation-proofed. The Bank of England destroyed the argument that this causes inflation in some way. Some 80% of the inflationary factors are external, and not to do with pay. The Government cannot argue that wages are causing inflation when they have been held down for 13 years. As others have said, they are now between 12% and 23% lower.
Finally, we need an inflation-proofing offer immediately so we can avoid the industrial action that is taking place. We want a reform of collective pay bargaining structures so we can get away from the current ludicrous system and back to collective bargaining itself. I think that in the future, all pay settlements across the whole economy should minimally be based on inflation-proofing, so that people are not impoverished as a result of pay settlements imposed upon them by the Government.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I disclose an interest: my father was a civil servant. He was in charge of economic development at the Welsh Office and was instrumental in getting the DVLA to come to Swansea, which I represent.
The Government have treated the DVLA appallingly, particularly during the pandemic, when something like 500 people caught covid at the Swansea centre. Even though the unions and the management agreed a policy to mitigate risk that allowed more people to stay at home, the then Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), intervened and pulled it off the table, forcing a strike. That was a taste of things to come: the Government have provoked unnecessary strikes across the board and failed to negotiate in order to create a political atmosphere in which they can say to the electorate, “It’s the strikers versus the people. Who are you going to vote for?” It is completely cynical and counterproductive.
In Swansea and many parts of the country that have very poor communities—Swansea was a recipient of EU structural funding—people have not had proper pay increases. We know about inflation. According to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, food inflation is at something like 17%. People have been given an offer of 2%, so it is no surprise that they have been provoked. Those public servants are one of Britain’s greatest achievements. They provide neutral support and advice to Ministers, and public services to the people.
Of course, the inflation was to a certain extent provoked by the Ukraine war, but it is interesting that energy inflation in Britain is much higher than it is in the rest of Europe, which is much more exposed to Russian gas. We have seen the fuel companies’ massive profiteering; those windfall profits should be properly taxed.
In addition, food price inflation has been pushed by retailers’ and food producers’ profiteering. During the pandemic, because farmers could not sell their products to the hospitality sector, which was closed, the retail sector took advantage by pumping up prices while costs were going down, doubling their profits. Again, in theory, they should face a windfall tax. Profiteering, the Ukraine war and Brexit, which of course added 6% to inflation, have pumped up costs for people who have faced 13 years of pay freezes. It is no surprise, therefore, that something like 40,000 of them are relying on food banks.
We want a proper negotiation. People know that there is not an unlimited amount of money, but treating them like dirt and pushing them on to their knees is a recipe for making them rise up and strike. That is completely unnecessary; we want to move forward.
People in the civil service accept that they earn a little less because they are public servants and their heart is in the right place, but they are being driven to take action. We have a tight labour market because there is not freedom of movement. We have had reckless covid management, so tens of thousands of people have long covid and are not as productive. The Government resist allowing civil servants to work from home, as we saw in the DVLA. We should support people in work, invest in them, allow them to work from home and provide wi-fi clouds to make them more productive.
I look forward to a growing economy in which we invest in a growing future, rather than a hobbled economy in which we kick people who are already down. We need a strategic approach to this problem, and I very much look forward to a Labour Government, as we have in Wales, who talk to the unions and people in work in partnership, so we can grow together in the knowledge that we all face constraints. We need to do that in an adult way, rather than with a bullying approach that provokes strikes and poverty.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter)—I hope that is the right way of pronouncing her constituency; I am definitely improving—on securing the debate. My constituency borders Belfast, so I have a large number of constituents employed in the civil service. This debate therefore is especially relevant to me.
I have been in this world a wee while. When I was in school, which was not yesterday, most of my friends leaving school sought jobs in the civil service. It offered job progression for many, and people had those jobs for life.
Today, life has changed. People change their jobs much more than they ever did. The problem that I see —others have said this, and I want to confirm it—is that people with civil service jobs come to me in the office in need of genuine help because they have financial difficulties or are using food banks. They sometimes come to me and say, “Jim, I’m under a bit of pressure with my mortgage. Can you approach the mortgage people and see if we can get a bit of space?” They want to make their payments—it is not that they do not want to—but they are having difficulty trying to manage them.
After a lengthy time of small increments and pay freezes, junior and senior civil servants were offered a pay increase of 2% in March 2022, with Departments having the flexibility to pay up to 3% in certain circumstances. By comparison, pay awards of 4% to 5% have been agreed in the public sector following industrial action, while the private sector has agreed awards of over 6%. I am not saying that the private sector should not do that, but if it can do it, civil servants should be given the same.
Overall, the median salary in the civil service has risen by 3% since 2010—less than the median real-terms changes at each individual grade. This is being driven by the increased seniority of the civil service. I read an interesting article, which said:
“While it is likely that at least some of this is a genuine change in composition, it is also likely that some civil servants are being promoted to boost their salaries, to stop them from leaving the civil service and to manage morale, rather than because their skill-set and responsibilities demand it. These promotions are likely to be focused in the middle grades, where there are more roles people can be promoted into than at senior levels. And it is harder to promote a junior official in an administrative, operational role because of the different responsibilities at the EO level.”
It is important to make that public and put it on the record, because that is what is happening to civil servants. They are not getting the pay rises that they justifiably should; instead, they are being moved about and given higher grades. That might help in the short term, but it does not really help them at all.
It is clear that in-house tinkering to try to meet the needs of the workforce has reached its limit, and Ministers must recognise this and begin to find a way forward to meet the need. Being a civil servant used to be known as a job for life—it was when I was a young boy—but staff increasingly feel overworked, underpaid and underappreciated. What a disappointment that is. Some civil servants are left feeling that, because they are not in as bad a financial position as those in retail, they should not complain. There is almost a guilt complex among some of them as well, but the fact is that to have happy, efficient staff, our civil service must lead the way.
To have staff who are not invested in doing the bare minimum but who are thankful for a decent job, we need to restore pride in their work and increase job satisfaction, which comes with the recognition that a decent pay rise takes on board, and I support staff in their aim on this. I am aware that working in the civil service has its advantages, such as decent annual leave, sick pay and maternity pay. These perks have carried people through for many years, but staff are now concerned about how they will stay warm on their days off at home. Given that they cannot afford to go on holidays either, it is clear that the perks are not enough to make people stick at it.
The fact is that those in decent jobs are precluded from the help that comes with universal credit or other benefit streams. Their children do not get free school meals and they are at risk of losing child benefit, despite the fact that they are under more financial pressure than when the child benefit threshold was set in 2013. The price of public transport and parking is up, and all bills have risen, yet their wages have not even tried to compete. There is only so much that a “job for life” means if that life is not of a decent quality. I say with great respect and honesty to the Minister that I join my colleagues on this side of the Chamber in asking for change and for reasonable adjustments to help civil servants to have a normal life like everybody else.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) on securing the debate.
I pay tribute to the unions that are working tirelessly on behalf of their members in their fight to secure fair deals on pay. Many Wirral West residents work in the civil service and a number of them—members of the PCS—have written to me in recent weeks. They have expressed their frustration and dismay that the civil service pay remit for 2022-23 limited pay increases to just 2% to 3%. They have also rightly pointed that, at the time, this
“represented a significant, real-terms pay cut given that inflation was already running at around 9%”.
We must also remember that the pay remit for 2022-23 has been set against a backdrop of a decade of real-terms pay cuts. According to PCS, as a result of pay being frozen and capped, the living standards of many of its members have fallen by about 20% in real terms in the last decade. The average PCS member is worse off by £2,300 a year since 2011. When the remit was announced in March last year, PCS was right to describe it as
“an insult to PCS members who helped to keep the country running during the pandemic”.
As I wrote in an email to the Chancellor just last week, the rhetoric of Ministers has not always recognised the dedication of civil servants, many of whom are still dealing with the impact of the covid-19 crisis, including those dealing with backlogs in the Home Office and criminal courts.
The PCS survey results are shocking, with 18% of members admitting to missing work because they cannot afford transport or fuel to get there; 37% of respondents saying that they are looking for a job outside the civil service and considering a career change for the good of their health; and 85% of members saying that the cost of living crisis has affected their physical or mental health. Shockingly, figures also suggest that 40% of PCS members are using food banks, and 47% are claiming universal credit because their pay is so low. It is therefore incredibly disappointing that the Government have ruled out a resettlement of the pay offer for the current financial year.
PCS is calling for a 10% pay uplift, an end to the pensions overpayment of 2%—which it says costs civil servants an average of £500 a year—and guarantees on the protection of the existing compensation scheme terms and job security. Constituents who have written to me have been clear that they
“would much prefer a negotiated settlement with the employer than to have to take…industrial action, particularly at a time when the cost of living is as high as it is.”
As we have seen elsewhere in the public sector, the Government’s refusal to pay workers the fair wage they deserve has left them feeling that they have no choice other than to go on strike to get their message across.
When it comes to pay remit guidance for 2023-24, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said that it will be put together
“in the context of higher inflation”,
and that he would
“expect some of that to be recognised in the sort of pay settlement”
that the Government are able to give civil servants. Nevertheless, he has tempered expectations, suggesting that civil servants will be left disappointed once again by the Government.
That is not good enough. The Government must ensure that civil servants receive the fair pay rise that they deserve. The Government’s attack on the rights of working people is wholly unacceptable, with the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill leaving some civil servants, as well as workers in key sectors, potentially at risk of losing their jobs as a result of industrial action agreed in a democratic ballot. That is very draconian indeed. It is a pernicious piece of legislation and it must be withdrawn immediately.
Will the Minister also address the issue of job cuts in the civil service? Last May, the Government announced that there would be 91,000 job cuts in the civil service within three years. The Prime Minister initially scrapped those plans when he came to office, but there were reports recently that there are still likely to be significant job cuts in the civil service, although no numbers have been confirmed yet. The Government should not need reminding that job cuts in the civil service would be detrimental to the quality and availability of the public services on which we all rely. As Amy Leversidge, the assistant general secretary of the FDA union said during a recent meeting of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Government
“cannot expect everything that was delivered with over 400,000 civil servants to be done with 91,000 less.”
Will the Minister commit to protecting jobs in the civil service? Will he revisit the 2022-23 civil service pay settlement in the light of the cost of living crisis and rising inflation? Finally, will he give a reassurance that hard-working civil servants will receive the pay and conditions they deserve in the next financial year?
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) for securing this important debate and for so evocatively laying bare in her opening remarks the scale of the crisis facing the civil service.
In recent days, Conservative Members have dedicated much of their energy contriving to impugn the conduct of the former second permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office. However, I have noticed with interest the lengths to which many of them have gone to make clear, regardless of their views of Sue Gray, the high esteem in which they hold the civil service. As the Paymaster General himself echoed in his remarks to the House yesterday, this nation’s civil servants are diligent and hard-working, and display the utmost integrity in the exercise of their duty. The question facing Conservative Members, and which I hope the Minister will address in a moment’s time, is: why should civil servants be denied the fair and long-overdue pay rise that will allow them to keep their heads above water during the most precipitous collapse in living standards in a generation?
The Government are impotent without the civil service, and nowhere was that more clearly demonstrated than during the height of the pandemic. That global health crisis necessitated the most radical expansion of state involvement in the lives of ordinary people since at least the second world war. Furloughed workers needed to get paid, businesses needed financial support, and the health service required additional resources on an unprecedented scale.
Notwithstanding the Government’s many failings during those dark days, not a single one of our successes in the fight against covid—including the vaccine roll-out—would ever have been possible without the hard work and dedication of the civil service. And yet, in November last year, those same workers were told by the Government that they deserved a measly pay rise of just 2% during a period of record inflation, when food prices have risen by more than 16% and October’s mini-Budget catastrophe sent mortgage rates and rents soaring. That is an insult. All of that comes after over a decade in which a public sector squeeze has seen pay fall at every grade of the civil service by between 12% and 23% in real terms.
Let us be very clear about what that squeeze has meant for those working in the civil service. Of all PCS members surveyed, 85% said that the cost of living crisis has impacted their physical and mental health, over half are worried about losing their homes, and nearly one in 10 have been forced to resort to food bank use. One constituent recently wrote to me to say that they felt at their wits’ end. Another asked for assistance in dealing with the payday lenders they had been forced to turn to in order to make ends meet, while another said that the challenge of keeping up with mortgage payments had left them feeling like a prisoner in their own home. We should not be surprised that a third of all respondents to the PCS survey said they were looking to leave the civil service entirely, and that a career change would do good for their mental health.
Next week, as the Chancellor delivers his Budget, more than 100,000 PCS members will be on picket lines across the country to tell this Government that enough is enough. I will be proud to stand with them as they do so. It is time for this Government to realise that this country cannot survive without its public servants, and those public servants cannot survive on warm words alone. In the national interest, I urge the Minister to get around the table and negotiate the fair pay rise that our civil servants so rightly deserve.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), who is a good friend, for securing this important debate, and for her excellent speech. I hope I have pronounced her constituency right, or she will kill me.
Although I have no formal interests to declare, I am a proud member of the PCS parliamentary group. I stand in full solidarity with the civil service in Liverpool, West Derby, and across the country, who are taking industrial action as a last resort over their pay, pensions and job security. It was an absolute privilege to stand with civil servants on an historic day at the PCS picket line in Whitehall last month, with quite a number of colleagues from this side of the House. It is a position they should never have been put in.
Workers in the civil service have not had a real-terms pay rise for over 11 years. Salaries have fallen by between 12% and 23% in real terms at each grade since 2010. There would be an uproar among MPs if that happened to them. There has been a sustained pay cut—a disgraceful pay injustice that has resulted in the loss of at least £2,800 a year in pay to individual civil servants. The pay structures across the civil service are fragmented into over 200 bargaining units, a system that the FDA trade union has rightly described as “dysfunctional and broken”.
That broken system has resulted not only in low pay but in wide variations of pay across the service, equal pay issues and a gender pay gap, as well as a recruitment and retention crisis. On top of that, civil servants have been overpaying pension contributions by £500 a year since 2019. The situation is grim.
This Government’s decade of brutal and unrelenting austerity has cut our public services to the bone and forced people who deliver those services into abject poverty. One in six people in my constituency are missing meals or going without food, and that includes many civil servants. In a PCS survey of its members, 35% of respondents said that they had skipped meals because they had no food, 18% that they have had to miss work because they cannot afford transport or fuel to get there, 85% that the cost of living crisis has affected their physical and mental health, and 52% that they are worried about losing their homes as bills and inflation rocket. Forty thousand civil servants are estimated to be regular users of food banks—I have seen that myself in the pantries that we run in Liverpool—and 47,000 are claiming universal credit because the pay is so low.
Let us just reflect on those statistics. The very people we trust to ensure that the social security system works for those in need are now being driven into hunger because of the poverty pay they receive. That encapsulates 13 years of Tory rule, which has driven many members of our public sector staff into poverty. Political choices are being made that have caused so much harm and misery to our communities. I have heard Members say, “Enough is enough,” quite a lot, certainly earlier on in the Chamber for the immigration statement. Let us use those words today to frame this economic injustice for all our loyal public servants; and let us hope the Minister uses them when we talk about that economic injustice.
The Government’s derisory 2% pay offer for 2022-23 is an absolute insult to those civil servants and their families. Inflation is over five times as high, and food inflation is around nine times as high. Trade unions representing staff, including fast streamers, are now taking industrial action as a last resort. One-hundred thousand civil servants will take strike action on Budget day next Wednesday: a day that the Government could use—if they had the political will and leadership, Minister —to announce an inflation-proof pay rise for public sector workers to avoid the strikes.
On Friday, I received a disappointing response from the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my letter raising the issues that I have raised in this debate. In that correspondence, he said that he would
“like to take this opportunity to reiterate…our gratitude for the exceptional commitment Civil Servants and public servants have shown in supporting essential public service delivery during this challenging time.”
Yet, further on in the letter he says that he recognises that the current civil service pay uplift
“will be below current levels of inflation.”
Warm words mean absolutely nothing to civil service staff in West Derby and across the country, who are not being paid enough to live off. I am also extremely disappointed that the Minister for the Cabinet Office appeared to suggest in that letter that pay restraint is somehow linked to getting inflation under control. The FDA’s independent analysis debunks the Government’s claim that public sector pay awards cause inflation. Inflation cannot be caused directly by public sector wage rises, and there is no evidence that this can occur indirectly.
I and my constituents are dismayed by the Minister for the Cabinet Office’s correspondence, and I am appalled by the Government’s overall approach to public sector pay disputes. Rather than taking the mature and robust step of offering an acceptable settlement on pay, terms and conditions, the Government have instead taken the reactionary step of ramping up anti-strike rhetoric and placing regressive legislation against industrial action on the statute book. That is not leadership when it is needed. We must be better than this. Those loyal public sector workers deserve the Minister’s action and support. We urge the Minister today to listen to the demands of civil service staff and their trade unions, and to provide them with pay justice and improved conditions. They and our nation deserve nothing less.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I appreciate you chairing this afternoon’s debate, Mr Pritchard. We have been particularly raucous and difficult to control, so congratulations on taking on that most difficult role this afternoon.
I also thank the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) for taking forward this incredibly important debate. I was going to start by discussing the question she asked yesterday in Department for Work and Pensions questions—to which the Secretary of State responded by tacitly acknowledging that more than a quarter of DWP staff are paid so little that the minimum wage increase in April will lift their salaries. How have we reached a situation where they are so poorly valued and so poorly paid that they are not even paid the real living wage? They are simply paid the Government’s pretendy living wage.
Given that such a high percentage of them claim universal credit, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) has just stated, how is that cost-effective for the Government, never mind anything else? If people are paid so little that they need other Government funding to allow them even the most basic standards of life, something is going wrong. As so many Members have said, these are people who worked day in, day out during the course of the pandemic. They worked so hard to ensure that others were able to access the vital public services that we all need and that became incredibly important—far more important than before the pandemic—for so many. People were putting themselves at risk by travelling and working during lockdowns and the pandemic. It is a travesty that those people have been undervalued to such an extent.
Comments have also been made about gender-based discrimination and job cuts, and the fact that the Government expect people to do more work for less pay. Nobody wants to do more work for less pay. We should value the folk who deliver the most vital public services. During sittings of the Procurement Bill Committee, which some Members here attended, we tried to ensure that the Government would write a real living wage into procurement contracts. It is important that the real living wage is paid. When we write procurement contracts it is important that that is a requirement on external contractors or companies, but it should also be required of all public services.
We are doing everything we can in Scotland. Ensuring that people such as those working in adult social care are paid the real living wage is resulting in a significant increase in the number of people being paid an amount on which it is possible for them to live. That also reduces reliance on the benefits system and ensures that people have dignity and can avoid having to go to food banks to provide basic services for their families.
The Minister might talk about the amount of money that the Government have given to people for electricity and gas bills, but it is not enough. People are still struggling. The money given to support people with energy costs does not fully cover the increased costs, and that is not to mention the 17.1% inflationary increase in the cost of food. The highest increase is for the most basic food, yet we cannot avoid buying pasta, potatoes and rice.
The Government need to step up. They need to properly negotiate with trade unions. Nobody wants to take industrial action. It is not the case that trade unionists hate work. They have been forced into this situation because of the UK Government’s unwillingness to negotiate. In Scotland we have negotiated pay deals far more successfully. We have experienced strikes in Scotland, but we have constantly been round the table talking. We have been able to make much higher pay offers despite the fact that we have a legal requirement to have a balanced budget. We do not have the same flexibility as the UK Westminster Government on budgets. They can pay people by making in-year changes to budgets. We cannot do that in Scotland, yet we have prioritised pay because we recognise how important our public sector workers are. We recognise how vital the services that they provide are, so we are doing everything that we can to make the best possible pay offers.
Job cuts have been mentioned, but we are trying to ensure that people are not asked to do more work for less pay. We are putting in other provisions as well to ensure that we have enough staff. Obviously, we are hampered in that by Brexit.
In spite of a decade of real-terms pay cuts and the lack of flexibility in the Scottish budget, we will keep on fighting for a better and fairer Scotland. On Thursday, the Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) accused me of using the need for a balanced budget in Scotland as a convenient scenario. It is not convenient! It is incredibly inconvenient that Scotland has to have a balanced budget and that we cannot therefore make the offers we would like to make and provide people with cost of living uplifts. We have been arguing for decades for independence for Scotland so that we do not have to work within this framework and so that we have the ability to make our own choices about spending and about the money that we have as a Government to spend. The UK Government’s continued cuts to the budget mean that our budget is less and we do not have the power or the flexibility to sort out that situation.
This debate has been incredibly interesting because Conservative Back Benchers have not come to the debate to provide their input. Do they not think that DWP staff are important? Do they not think that Home Office staff and DVLA staff are important? Do they not think that they should be coming out to bat for their constituents and providing that level of support? We are not asking for anything excessive. We are asking simply for the Government to look at inflation-level increases. That is not a completely crazy idea. It would allow people to have the dignity to support themselves and, as I have said a couple of times, not to find themselves entangled in the benefits system, where they are having to claim universal credit. People do not want to be in that system, but when the Government are not paying them enough and when Government Members are standing up in Parliament, as they did yesterday, and doing everything they can to smear the name of the civil service, we will have a situation where those dedicated public servants will be saying, “Enough is enough. We are not continuing to work for this Conservative Government, who continually undervalue us and refuse to negotiate reasonable pay uplifts.”
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Pritchard. I, too, pay a big tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) for securing this really important debate. Her passionate opening remarks highlighted why we are having the debate. I want to go back to some of the points that she highlighted.
In the recent survey conducted by the PCS union, 85% of its members said that the cost of living crisis had had a big impact on their mental and physical health. If people are not in a fit position to go to work, how are they supposed to carry out even the basic functions that they are employed to do? When we talk about people using food banks, some Members of this House basically say that that is incorrect, but the figures do not lie: 40,000 of that union’s members say that they are using food banks. That should shame us. Those are staff members, people in work and with a salary, having to rely on food banks. That should not be happening in 2023. Of those PCS members, 18% said that they had missed work because of their inability to afford transport or fuel—the energy companies and fuel companies are making record profits but not passing the benefit down to people who are filling up at the petrol stations—and 40% said that they had had to use credit for essential shopping. We saw what happened a few years ago with the rise of loan companies and loan sharks. If we are not careful, the number of people who have to rely on credit for the basic necessities—for basic bills—will creep up. That is what is happening to people who are in work. In-work poverty should not be happening.
Many hon. Members have highlighted issues across their constituencies, and I think about my own constituency, just over the bridge, where a significant number of civil servants live. Many Members have highlighted how hard our civil servants worked during the pandemic. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the fact that, if we are honest, a job in the civil service is no longer a job for life. I will be honest: when I graduated, I applied for the fast stream, but I failed at the first hurdle and I thought that that was the end of my career. A number of people who have worked in the civil service feel that they have no career progression. Their pay is stagnating, and they are leaving. He is right; it is no longer a job for life.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) highlighted the fact that the 2% increase is an insult—nothing more—because inflation is skyrocketing and the cost of everything is going up for our civil servants. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) highlighted the really big issue that civil servants are having to rely on food banks. I totally agree with him that the situation is grim. To repeat his words, we are forcing people into abject poverty because they are having to choose. That should not be happening. I also agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) that as a result of what the Government are proposing and the fact that they are not negotiating, fewer people will be doing more work for less pay. That should not be happening, either.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) raised the issues with the DVLA, which we all remember, and the shameful way in which the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), handled that situation, with hard-working staff not being treated right. These issues are happening while the Government refuse to negotiate with our civil servants. If we look back to the pandemic, civil servants kept the country going and on its feet, whether by putting emergency measures in place, adjusting to new realities or taking on the mammoth task of dealing with so many different schemes, including furlough. Let us be honest: even now, those civil servants are still working to clear up backlog Britain. We have all seen that backlog in our casework, whether it is with the Home Office, the DVLA or passports. The civil servants are still working to clear it up, and trying to fix the problems of the past 12 years that have been caused by the Government’s mismanagement.
Our public services are at breaking point. That is not the fault of the hard-working public sector staff; it is the fault of the Government, who have failed and let down our valued institutions—the Government who do not value our staff, and who have failed to recruit and retain staff across the public sector. We are now in a situation where civil servants feel that they have no choice but to go on strike. Like many people, they are seeing their bills and the cost of food rise. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North mentioned pasta, potatoes and rice; whenever I get updates from the food banks in my constituency, those are the key items that they want people to drop off. Those basic items are now so expensive, and the truth is that civil servants’ pay is not keeping up with those increases. The Government are more determined to scapegoat workers and avoid fixing a mess that they created than they are to get around the table and negotiate, including in the civil service.
We cannot expect the civil service to be attractive to external employees when civil servants are expected to withstand threats to their jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) highlighted the fact that just over a year ago, the Government threatened to cut 91,000 jobs across the civil service. That caused endless sleepless nights for those who were worried about the future of their jobs. Thankfully, those plans have been shelved, but given the merry-go-round of Ministers that we have had, how can anyone joining the civil service now be sure that that proposal will not come up again? That uncertainty and real-terms pay cuts are hindering the civil service’s ability to retain and recruit staff. Too often, that results in the false economy of having to rely on external contractors and consultants within the civil service. Year after year, public money is being spent on external consultants, rather than attracting the knowledge that we need in-house and training people to have that knowledge. We have simply outsourced the pay rise that our civil servants need to keep up with the cost of living to the profits of consulting firms. That is a horrific waste of money, resulting directly from 12 years of Government neglect and ideology-driven pay decisions.
When we consider civil service pay, we must look at its impact on equality. There are around half a million civil servants, who are responsible for delivering vast amounts of our public services. It is critical that our civil service is representative of our society as a whole, but we cannot expect it to be representative when pay across the civil service is unequal. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley mentioned the shocking issues that PACAC explored around racism in the civil service—I hope the Minister and his colleagues will be looking at that—and the shocking fact that the gender pay gap in the civil service increased drastically in 2022, with the median pay gap increasing by almost 70% in just one year. We cannot tackle inequality in society if inequality is entrenched in our civil service.
One point I would like the Minister to come back on is whether he agrees with the Women and Equalities Committee, which reported last year on the ethnicity pay gap—another key issue within the civil service. Does he agree that the first step in addressing the pay disparity is to ensure that ethnicity pay gap reporting is mandatory? I urge him to outline the measures he is taking to address the pay gap in the civil service.
The Government have a responsibility to ensure our public services are run well and our public sector workers are treated fairly. The next Labour Government’s mission will be to grow our economy, ensure that we have high-quality public services and ensure that our workers have better pay and conditions. Labour’s new deal for working people looks to deliver on this mission for the civil service and across society. The cost of living crisis is driving our civil servants to breaking point. It must be a priority for the Government to get to grips with this crisis and ensure that working people do not continue to suffer. Working people need a fair deal. The Government must get around the table to ensure that our public services are not ravaged by the outcomes of 12 years of Conservative failure and mismanagement.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) on securing the debate, as I welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues. I am sure the Chancellor will have heard her remarks. The Government are obviously in the process of preparing for the Budget in the very near future.
At the outset, I want to join all Members in recognising the extraordinary hard work and dedication of the civil service. I cannot accept the remarks made—admittedly, as an aside—by the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) about how the Government are in some way scapegoating civil servants. That is absolutely not the case. It was not the case in the urgent question in the House yesterday. Obviously, a lot of people in the Cabinet Office are sad about what has happened over the past few days, but that in no way detracts from our huge respect for our exceptional civil servants, on whom we rely every single day. It is important for me to put that on the record.
As right hon. and hon. Members will undoubtedly be aware, civil service pay is determined by separate processes for delegated grades—typically grade 6 and below—and the senior civil service. For delegated grades, the Cabinet Office publishes the pay remit guidance annually. The guidance is a cost control document setting out the parameters of average awards in a pay remit year for Departments. For the senior civil service, the Senior Salaries Review Body makes independent recommendations to the Government based on evidence provided by the Government and data from recognised trade unions and the labour market.
In the 2021 spending review, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the end of the temporary pay pause in the public sector, including the civil service, starting from the year 2022-23, throughout the duration of the spending review period to 2024-25. The strong recovery in the economy and labour market at that time allowed us to return to a normal pay setting process. Again, right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that new challenges then emerged. We are operating now in a very different economic environment. Higher than expected global energy and goods prices have already led to unavoidable increases in the cost of living in the UK, and the repercussions of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine have added considerably to those pressures.
Last year, the civil service pay remit guidance allowed Departments to make awards of up to 3%, which we absolutely recognise is below inflation. The Government of course recognise the significant strain that cost of living pressures are putting on everyone, including civil servants, and this Government have been helping with energy support and other cost of living payments for the most vulnerable.
Chris Stephens
The Minister mentioned the pay remit guidance. For clarity, can he confirm that the pay remit guidance is one document—that there is only one piece of pay remit guidance? If so, why are there 200 sets of negotiations across Westminster Government Departments?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear that I will come to that point very soon.
As everyone will, I hope, appreciate, the Government put fiscal responsibility at the very centre of our policy, and we are taking appropriate steps to manage inflation. Obviously, at the moment, it is not public sector wages that are driving inflation. Many factors are driving inflation. Inflation is besetting our closest friends and competitors around the world; it is an international problem. However, if we were to take the advice of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and others, we would find ourselves in trouble.
The Governor of the Bank of England and its chief economist have both said that inflation-matching pay rises in the public sector can spill over into higher pay across the economy, and that would make the fight against inflation even more challenging. That is why halving inflation is the top of the Prime Minister’s five immediate priorities, alongside growing the economy, reducing national debt, getting the NHS backlog down and stopping small boats crossing the channel. Our focus is on pay for 2023-24.
John McDonnell
It is difficult to see how a reasonable settlement below the rate of inflation—for example, the fire brigade settlement of 7%, with backdating and 5% for next year—could in any way offend against the Bank of England Governor’s comments. Have the Government even considered an offer of that sort to the civil service?
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Gentleman is a former shadow Chancellor. He will appreciate that the higher the pay settlement, the slower the rate of decline in inflation is likely to be. [Laughter.] He laughs; I hope he has realised how the numbers work.
John McDonnell
This is unique in economic history in this country. We are arguing that a pay award below the rate of inflation is still inflationary. I have never heard that one before, and I think we should record it for posterity.
Alex Burghart
I know the right hon. Gentleman is new to this House, and I am delighted to be able to tell him that the minutes of this debate will indeed be recorded for posterity. He will understand that the sooner the speed of inflation comes down to a manageable level, the sooner we can return to growth in the economy. The sooner the whole economy benefits, the sooner public services will benefit. He proposed an inflation-matching pay rise, but that would certainly not help bring down inflation, and he knows that. It is very easy to propose things from the Labour Back Benches that sound good, but that are impractical and damaging. The Government have to take fiscally responsible decisions.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden), said in a recent PACAC evidence session that considerations for the pay settlement this year will, of course, be done in the context of higher inflation, but that
“we have to be cognisant of wider pressures on the public finances, which ultimately can be paid for only by higher taxes, by increased borrowing or by savings elsewhere in the Government…Ministers have to take difficult decisions.”
Geraint Davies
The Minister is making the case for a balanced approach. The Chancellor’s objective is to halve inflation this year, from 10% to 5%, so prices will have risen 15% over two years. Given that, what would be a reasonable and balanced pay award to civil servants over those two years, in the Minister’s view?
Alex Burghart
Those conversations are ongoing, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware. It is not within my remit to speculate on that.
Alex Burghart
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Salaries for junior grades in the civil service remain comparable with private or public sector equivalents. Many civil servants also benefit from defined benefit schemes, where employers contribute around 27% of earnings. In contrast, most private sector employees receive defined contribution pensions, which are dependent on investment performance, and where employer contributions are typically around half those in the public sector.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, pay arrangements for civil servants below the senior civil service are delegated to Departments as separate employers. That has been the case since 1996, and was not a position overturned by the previous Labour Government. The annual pay remit guidance sets out the financial parameters within which civil service Departments can determine pay awards for their staff. Negotiations take place between organisations and trade unions. The Cabinet Office does not negotiate or consult on pay or changes to terms and conditions outside the civil service management code. Ultimately, it is for Departments to decide on their pay awards and how they are structured, in the light of their own budgets and priorities, and to negotiate with their trade unions.
There are many merits to the delegated model, as the last Labour Government recognised. Civil service Departments deal with many different, complex issues. That means it is really important that Departments continue to have the flexibility to tailor their own pay and grading arrangements to enable them to recruit, retain and reward the hard-working civil servants who deliver for them.
Pay remit guidance also allows Departments to seek further flexibility for a pay award above the headline range for pay awards. That has enabled some Departments to make higher awards to their staff in return for productivity and efficiency gains, or to reform terms and conditions of employment, in order to deliver transformational reform. That has been demonstrated in pay deals at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Ministry of Justice in recent years.
We continue to explore opportunities for greater coherence for reward in future years in support of civil service challenges and priorities, which is where the work of cross-Government professions and functions have a particularly valuable role to play. The Minister for the Cabinet Office met with some of the main civil service unions on 12 January to listen to their representations on pay, as part of an exchange of information to inform pay for 2023-24. That is supported by continuing dialogue at official level.
The Government remain committed to holding discussions about pay for 2023-24. We want to work constructively with the civil service trade unions as the Government consider the pay remit guidance, the delegated grades and the evidence to the Senior Salaries Review Body on senior civil service pay. I am confident that when we announce the 2023-24 civil service pay remit guidance, we will continue to strike the balance between appropriate reward and the need to live within our means as a nation.
Chris Stephens
The Minister has confirmed that there is one pay remit guidance. Do the Government have any plans to cut the numbers of negotiations? There are currently more than 200 across Westminster Government Departments.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that we consider there to be many advantages to this model.
The purpose of Westminster Hall debates is for the Minister to come and listen to what colleagues in the House have to say. It was interesting, listening to the hon. Member for Vauxhall, to hear that a lot of the positions from the Labour Back Benches do not necessarily accord with the position of the Labour Front Bench. I wonder whether one of the things that is happening in this Westminster Hall debate is an internal debate within the Labour party being aired in public. There was no position from the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson on collective bargaining, on the pay offer, or on PCS strike actions.
Florence Eshalomi
On this side of the House, we will make sure that we negotiate—sit around the table and address the concerns. It is not for me to say, “This is what we will offer.” It is about sitting down with the unions, outlining the concerns and then coming to a decision.
Alex Burghart
I respect the hon. Lady’s position. However, that is not the position that many of her colleagues have taken here today. It is important that the Labour party comes to an agreed position before the next election. If it does not, we will be sure to remind the public that the Labour party does not have a position on this, whereas the Government do.
Beth Winter
I am wondering if the Members on this side of this room are living in a parallel universe to the Minister, given that he did not address any of the points we raised in any substantive way. I will follow up my questions and comments and those of others in writing to the Minister; I hope I can get a more comprehensive response.
We have heard today about what the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) called the heroes of the pandemic: our public servants. And yet, they have had the lowest pay increase in the public sector since the advent of the coalition Government back in 2010. The civil service staff are demoralised, angry, frustrated and desperate. They are suffering extreme hardship, using food banks and unable to afford to go to work.
You have not addressed any of the real hardships that they are facing, which have been caused directly by your policies and your low pay agenda. A civil service member of staff contacted me yesterday and described themselves as, “The poor relations who feel totally overlooked by society.” You have it in your gift to redress this—to address the problems that these workers face. On behalf of the PCS parliamentary group, we formally invite you to join PCS members on the picket line next week to listen to the real-life experiences of PCS members. If you are not going it for the staff who are suffering, do it for yourself. It is not efficient—
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the hon. Lady to address her remarks through the Chair, rather than using “you”. The Minister is responding on behalf of the Government.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
I am neutral. I remind the hon. Member to address her remarks through the Chair. The Minister is here representing the Government rather than as an individual.
Beth Winter
I just wish that people could tell how passionate I and others feel about this.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Indeed, there are a lot of passionate feelings on both sides of this debate.
John McDonnell
There was a flippant remark from the Minister with regard to meeting PCS members. I just remind him that PCS members in my constituency—two Border Control staff—died during the pandemic because of covid. They sacrificed their lives keeping this country safe.
Alex Burghart
On a point of order, Mr Pritchard. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that there was no flippant remark about PCS whatsoever. [Interruption.] There was no flippant remark whatsoever. The record will state that all I said was that you had been invited to join the picket line, Mr Pritchard. That is not a flippant remark about PCS.
Alex Burghart
It was not a flippant remark about PCS. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it was not.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. The Minister is entitled to put his point of order—although it is not a point of order. However, it has been put on the record by our excellent Hansard colleagues here. We go back to Beth Winter for the last three minutes of the debate.
Beth Winter
May I ask, through the Chair, whether the Minister will agree to attend the picket line to listen to the real-life experiences of so many thousands of civil service staff? As I began to say, if the Government are not going to address these issues for the people who are suffering, surely they will do so, because it is in their own interests. The overwhelming evidence shows that the current system is not efficient. It is not cost-effective and it will not address the cost of living crisis—
John McDonnell
Could my hon. Friend give way to the Minister so that he can respond and confirm whether he is coming to meet the PCS members next week?
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
The Minister can choose to respond or not, because he has concluded his remarks. If he wants to intervene, he can, but it is entirely down to him. The hon. Member who moved the motion can continue for the last minute and then allow me to put the Question, or can talk out her own time, which will mean the Question is not put. She can make that decision. [Interruption.] Order. The right hon. Gentleman should know, as he has been here for a very, very long time. I have been very patient with him.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman thinks he has been here too long is entirely a matter for him. He will come to order, thank you.
Beth Winter
It is my strongly held opinion that it is in everybody’s interest that people across the public sector are given an inflation-proof pay rise. I urge the Government to follow the lead of the Welsh and Scottish Governments and enter into proper negotiations with the civil service to address the horrendous situation that people are experiencing.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the civil service pay remit and the future of pay negotiations.
Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
(1 year, 2 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
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
I will call Stephen Hammond to move the motion, and then I will call the Minister to respond. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in 30-minute debates he does not get a one-minute wind-up at the end.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. We had an important hour and a half debate on electric vehicle charging in this place less than two weeks ago, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine). It was a wide-ranging debate and we touched on a number of issues, but today I want to define it slightly more tightly and look at a couple of issues in a bit more detail. I recognise that there is a risk of repetition, but this is an extraordinarily important matter for this country to get right.
Although the country and the Government are making huge progress—the Government are leading the world, to a great extent, with the UK’s net zero target of 2050 and the phasing out of the internal combustion engine by the beginning of the 2030s—it is hugely important that they set aspirations and lead other nations.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. There just are not enough electric charging points across the whole of the United Kingdom. As a result, constituents are unwilling or unable to buy electric cars, which take eight hours to charge fully. The latest figures indicate that there are now more than 90 vehicles per rapid charging point. Does he agree that it is crucial that conversations are had with Departments in the devolved Governments and other countries to enable them to align with the rest of the UK in electric vehicle charging points?
Stephen Hammond
I will later refer to the barriers to greater electric vehicle uptake, which include accessibility and the number of on and off-street charging points. There are great regional disparities across the United Kingdom in the number of charging points per 1,000 people. There are great differences between London, Scotland and the rest of the world. I am sure colleagues from more rural areas will talk about access to charging points and about local councils’ ability to allow people to use on-street and off-street parking, which sometimes prohibits the movement from the internal combustion engine to electric vehicles.
Transport represents 27% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions, and road transport is somewhat over 85% of that. We should not underestimate the progress that has been made. There are now 39,000 charging points across the UK and about 1,135,000 plug-in vehicles. But, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the price of those vehicles and the lack of access to charging points prevent uptake. There is also a lack of a second-hand market—perhaps unsurprisingly, given the relatively recent development of the electric vehicle—which would mean more widespread availability and help the movement to electric vehicles.
Production levels of electric vehicles, which were greater two years ago than they are now, means that although there are 1,135,000 vehicles at the moment, the progress of uptake is slower than we would have expected, given the culture behind electric and hybrid.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
My hon. Friend rightly made the point about access. Havant Borough Council has installed several fast electric vehicle charging points in partnership with a private sector contractor. Does he agree that local authorities, particularly those in coastal and rural areas, have a key role to play in expanding EV charging infrastructure and that others should follow the example of my local council, and will he say more about that in his later remarks?
Stephen Hammond
My hon. Friend is right to point out that a number of councils are exemplars for charging, but a number of other councils are lagging behind the good example of Havant. I will come to that issue, because one of my key asks is for the Minister to consider what pressure the Department is prepared to put on local councils. I mentioned that we have seen some movement on electric cars, but there are barriers. Perhaps the biggest is accessing charging points and the infrastructure that is available. We have a target of 300,000 charging points by 2030, but we currently have fewer than 39,000. We therefore need a compound increase of 33% over the next seven or eight years to make that a reality. Unless we do more, that target looks challenging.
There are also issues with accessing on-street charging points, of which there is a limited number. We need to change the culture, and part of that is that, although there are huge numbers of funds and suppliers, far too many people think only the public sector should provide charging points. That is wrong. Also, if someone who lives on a road with a limited number of charging points gets home at six or seven in the evening and someone is charging their car, and if it is not a rapid charging point, it will take anywhere between four and eight hours to charge that car. I challenge my colleagues here to say who is going to get up at two o’clock in the morning and move their car so that the charging point becomes available, and who else is going to get up and move their car to that charging point.
We need to make more on-street charging points available. We also need to make some of those on-street charging points accessible to households that are unlikely to be near places where the public installation of on-street charging can happen. I will make the case in a few moments that local byelaws should be changed so that that can become a reality for many people, particularly those in rural areas.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I am sure the Minister will respond to in detail in a moment. On rural charging for electric vehicles, it strikes me that in very rural areas, such as many parts of Suffolk in my constituency, the only solution is to make the availability of home charging for each and every household economically viable. Even in a village, it can still be one or 1.5 miles from one end to the other in terms of connectivity. Will he speak more about home charging and what he thinks the Government should do to promote it, particularly in rural areas?
Stephen Hammond
My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that I will make some remarks on that issue and particularly on what can be done. He is right: according to the RAC, the cost of home charging for a rapid vehicle is about 13p per kWh, yet those who use public chargers have seen a 91% increase to something like just over £3 per kWh. That is quite a big discrepancy. Although we have seen progress on on-street charging, the reality of home charging is important.
I want to make some key asks of the Government, some of which will involve direct Government intervention and some of which will involve Government pressure on local authorities to set targets. My first direct ask of the Government is a lobbying point for the Budget. As my right hon. Friend the Minister will know, there is currently a huge discrepancy between the VAT charged when people charge electric vehicles away from home and that charged when people charge them at home. The VAT on public charging is currently 20%, so the inequality between home charging and away-from-home charging is a major impediment. Will the Government look, not only in the forthcoming Budget but in future Budgets, at equalising the VAT rates for on-street away-from-home charging and home charging?
There also needs to be a change in the planning presumptions. We all agree that we need more on-street and on-site parking in terms of retail leisure parks and new in-town developments. The presumption should now be that any and all development comes with the right infrastructure that will allow a far greater number of not only charging points but rapid charging points for electric vehicles. That requires the Government to put some pressure on local authorities, or my right hon. Friend the Minister to work with his colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to change the planning presumption.
Currently, local authorities are responsible for deciding the locations in their area and securing funding for the delivery of on-street parking. The clear problem at the moment is that only 28% of local authorities have complied with the requirement to have an electric vehicle charging strategy. As I have said, even fewer are working with the large number of infrastructure funds and the providers of funds that would happily work in public-private partnership to work out the number of charging points that can be easily delivered in one year. Some local authorities have made huge progress on that—for example, under its previous Conservative leadership, Wandsworth worked with a major supplier to deliver a huge increase in on-street parking.
Local authorities need to have a strategy and to commit to work with the people who can supply the funding, so one of my asks of the Government is that, with the Department for Transport and DLUHC working together, they put some pressure on authorities to have such a plan in place. We should be pretty clear about what those plans cover: they should cover, as I said, the change in planning presumption and commit to an increase in on-street capacity.
The plans should contain another commitment. Let me address directly the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). All too often, local byelaws prevent home charging. We allow a huge number of utility companies to put wires and pipes across streets, and they do so safely; one of the great local campaigns I have run in my area is to change a local byelaw to allow people to run cables safely across pavements. It could easily be done, via either cable gullies or other protective measures, to allow people to home-charge who do not have access either to off-street parking—because they do not have their own driveway—or to on-street public facilities. A simple change in the byelaw could easily be applied. There are of course safety challenges and public liability challenges, but the reality is that we let utility companies do it every day of the week, all over the country, and a simple change in byelaws would allow a huge number of extra people to access charging infrastructure.
I am trying to set out how, if we want to make the movement to electric vehicles a reality, there are some things in respect of which we as a country need to change the presumption and the DFT and colleagues in DLUHC need to change the culture. I have set out a number of asks for the Government. Changing the byelaws and planning permission is a relatively simple thing they could work on.
Finally, the Government need to think carefully about the 300,000 target. I accept that it is ambitious and difficult to achieve; however, in the second half of this decade, as the culture among vehicle owners moves more rapidly as price barriers are removed and production levels go up, it may well be that the target of 300,000 public charge points is simply inadequate. I ask the Government to commit to looking at that internally in the Department, and to make a written public statement on the need to be more flexible with the target and possibly to increase it.
I said that I would try to concentrate my remarks because we had a wide-ranging debate less than two weeks ago on the expansion of infrastructure, including in respect of home infrastructure, off-street parking, on-street parking in residential areas and on-site parking in non-residential areas. Removing the barriers to the expansion of those facilities would dramatically increase the opportunity for more people to switch to electric vehicles. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard, not least because you are a man educated in Hereford. It is a pleasure to respond to the interesting comments made by my dear hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). I congratulate him on the indefatigable way in which he has pressed this issue in this Chamber and in the House of Commons over the years on behalf of his constituents in Wimbledon. He is absolutely right that the issue is important and has wider repercussions. I thank other colleagues who have made interventions in the debate.
It is interesting that this debate follows not just the debate that my hon. Friend mentioned, which took place a few weeks ago, but this morning’s 90-minute debate on rural decarbonisation, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby). That is testament to the level of concern and interest among our colleagues in the House.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon knows, the Government are committed to achieving their climate change obligations. Decarbonising transport is a key part of that. I hope we will make some important announcements fairly shortly about the zero emission vehicle mandate, which will be a massive driver of investment in new charge points and new electric vehicles. We are doing that not only to help to decarbonise the atmosphere but to improve air quality and the quality of life in our towns and cities, while supporting a sustainable path of economic growth. We are committed to phasing out the sale of all new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2030, and to ensuring that all new cars and vans are zero emission by 2035. We have already put in something like £2 billion to support the transition process.
As part of that process, almost a year ago the Government published their landmark electric vehicle infrastructure strategy, which comprehensively set out their vision and commitments in this policy area. In particular, the strategy put in place an expectation of around 300,000 public charge points—not just charge points, as my hon. Friend said, but public charge points. That is important because sitting alongside that are hundreds of thousands of charge points being put into private premises through the normal process of investment that goes alongside the purchase of electric vehicles. That may happen under a previously funded scheme or come as part of the package of buying the vehicle or via a number of other methods. Even that 300,000 is just a part of the overall picture. My hon. Friend is right to flag the ambition inherent in the target. As technology changes, as the market becomes more competitive and as the zero emission vehicle mandate kicks in, we expect that target to come into view.
Alan Mak
The Minister will know that throughout history the use of technology has accelerated when there is greater interoperability, common standards and open protocols. Does he feel that is an important aspect of our race to increase the deployment of electric vehicle charging infrastructure in this country?
Jesse Norman
Yes. I do not think there is any doubt about that, and my hon. Friend is right that that has been the pattern in the past. Of course, one cannot just regard technology as a panacea. Technology will improve, and it will stimulate competition and increase growth at certain rates, but one has to be careful as to what the rate is. There is a moment in all market development at which markets go from being a collection of competing standards and potential franchises to becoming a standardised, all-embracing place in which different rivals can compete. That is what we are seeing with charging. We are seeing individual networks yielding over time to networks that can be accessed using credit cards, for example, in a network-neutral way. The Department is supporting that.
It is worth pointing out that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon highlighted, local authorities are going to be and will remain a central part of the nearer-to-home provision for charging, and possibly the nearer-to-business provision. What there will be less of in some areas is rapid charging on the public strategic road network, because that has different demands and is being handled in a slightly different way.
On 21 February, the Government announced an additional £56 million in public industry funding to support the local electric vehicle infrastructure programme, which includes a capability pilot designed to improve local authorities’ capacity to commission and implement the infrastructure, recognising the concern that there was not necessarily a completely consistent picture of expertise or capability on the local authority network. In turn, that capability will enable what my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon rightly pressed the Government on. He asked whether we will continue to incentivise, encourage and press local authorities to do more; of course, we can do that as their capabilities improve.
Stephen Hammond
My right hon. Friend the Minister is clearly right about what the Government should be pressing local authorities to do. Given that they are giving additional funding for the capacity for local authorities to outline their strategy, might it not be good and sensible for the Government to ensure that there is a timeline for when local authorities should have strategies in place?
Jesse Norman
We can look to the incentives provided by public funding and public pressure, and pressure from car owners, to drive that process. I would not rule out a more engaged attitude towards local authorities. Indeed, I have met plenty of local authorities in the relatively short time I have been in this job, precisely because I regard charge point infrastructure provision as a very serious issue. It is one that involves not only the charge point operators and the electricity providers but the local authorities themselves, as the providers of infrastructure. I take on board my hon. Friend’s point. The funding I have described sits alongside funding already being provided through the on-street residential charge point scheme.
I have talked a little about rapid charging; I do not need to spend too much more time on that. It does not directly affect the situation. Members will be aware that the current situation is that a driver is never more than 25 miles away from a rapid charge point. We need to increase and accelerate the level of charge points we have put in and we have a commitment to do so, to around 6,000 ultra-rapid devices by 2035.
Stephen Hammond
My right hon. Friend is incredibly generous to give way again. I made a glaring omission in my remarks. Although he rightly says that rapid charging points are perhaps the next follow-on, the reality is that rapid charging points are hugely important for commercial vehicle transition to electric vehicles, including in respect of taxi cabs and others. I had some remarks to make about that but somehow missed them out. We speak a lot about domestic vehicles, but we need to recognise the transition in commercial activity as well.
Jesse Norman
My hon. Friend is right to make that adjustment. I assumed that, given the confines of a Westminster Hall debate, he was compressing an otherwise comprehensive speech into a narrower compass, and rightly so.
Given the time available, let me pick up on a couple of things before I have to sit down. To strengthen consumer confidence, the Government will lay legislation in the coming months to reduce charging anxiety still further. To address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), that legislation will mandate open data; 99% reliability across each rapid charging network; a 24/7 helpline for when something might go wrong; contactless and payment roaming; and a pricing network to improve and increase transparency. That will improve competition rivalry and therefore investment. We have also made significant further investment.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about changing planning permissions for developments. He is not in his place, but I should say that last year the Government implemented legislation to require new builds and buildings undergoing renovations to install charging points for domestic and non-domestic vehicles during construction. Part of the solution is not just further public investment alongside the rapidly escalating private investment; it is also about better regulation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon asked about the Budget and VAT on charging. As a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury I remind him that, as he will know, I will be skinned if I attempt to commit the Government on this issue, least of all in respect of tax policy a few days before a fiscal event. But I am sure it is on the public record and it will be well noted in No. 1 Horse Guards.
My hon. Friend talked about pressure on local authorities with regard to long-term plans. It is right that good local authorities think about longer-term plans. Not all the infrastructure originally installed was long term in its inspiration; it was an early technology that has since been superseded. I think local authorities are getting better. We have plans to assist local government in thinking about gullies, which are a useful long-term way to providing for on-street charging that will make a big difference.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) asked about home charging in rural areas. He is right that such areas suffer particular drawbacks, but they have the advantage that there tends to be more available parking space there for people who buy electric vehicles. We would expect to see that as we see more longevity improvements in technology, but that then requires people to be able to charge. That capability is increasingly provided as part of the commercial package of buying a vehicle. As we see technology and competition take over, we can expect the price of vehicles to fall over time. I believe that the problem my hon. Friend raised will start to address itself over and above the considerable investments that we are already making.
Question put and agreed to.
Ukrainian Holodomor and the War in Ukraine
(1 year, 2 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
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Ukrainian Holodomor and the war in Ukraine.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I know that this is an issue that you will be interested in, as you chaired the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine for a while.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Just for the record, I no longer chair the APPG on Ukraine. I am completely neutral.
Mrs Latham
This debate takes place at a terrible and opportune moment. Ninety years ago, in the spring of 1933, millions of Ukrainians were starved to death as part of a campaign of terror and forced hunger that was implemented by the Soviet leadership in Moscow. Last month I joined Derby’s Ukrainian community to commemorate those who lost their lives, and two weeks ago we marked the first anniversary of Russia’s latest invasion of Ukrainian territory—this time with military force, but once again with the aim of exterminating the nation of Ukraine. Today I will set out the case for the UK Government and Parliament to recognise the Holodomor as a genocide, and I will highlight some of the similarities with what is happening today, and the dangers of failing to recognise war crimes, crimes against humanity and even genocide.
I was part of the APPG on Ukraine delegation that recently visited Kyiv, and I see in the Chamber some of my colleagues who joined me. While we were there, the links between Soviet politics in the 1930s and the Russian aggression today were startlingly evident. We saw proof of the Russian attacks on Ukrainian nationhood and identity that are taking place today, and also visited the memorial to the millions of Ukrainians who were callously killed by Stalin in 1932 and 1933.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I visited the Holodomor memorial with the hon. Lady, who is leading the debate brilliantly, and I have no doubt that the Holodomor was a genocide. A number of genocides are unrecognised by the UK Government. The Holodomor is a prime example, but there is also Armenia, West Papua and the Rohingya. Should there not be a better and quicker process for the British Government to recognise genocides, particularly historical genocides?
Mrs Latham
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because I will come on to what our Government have said in the past. It is important, because the people who were subjected to the genocide, and many of the people who were there and survived, are no longer alive, so it is incredibly difficult to go to court and prove anything from that time.
In June 2013, just after the 80th anniversary of the Holodomor, I first led a debate in this House calling for the UK Government to recognise the Holodomor as a genocide. I tried again in November 2017, but we have just marked the 90th anniversary this year and there is still no official recognition by the Government. I hope that today will prove third time lucky, and that there will be no need for a similar debate on the same subject in 10 years’ time, when it will be 100 years since the Holodomor took place.
“Holodomor” is a Ukrainian word that means “to inflict death by hunger”. However, the term now refers to the entire Stalinist campaign to eliminate the Ukrainian nation, which culminated in the forced famine of 1932 and 1933, killing millions of Ukrainians. The exact number is not known, because the Soviet Union refused to allow reporting of the famine, but it is estimated that 7 million, and maybe as many as 10 million, died in Ukraine, with many more deaths in neighbouring Soviet states. The Holodomor was a policy designed to eliminate the Ukrainian rural farmer population, who were the embodiment and spirit of Ukrainian culture and nationhood.
To understand the Holodomor, it is important to keep in mind the context of that period. In 1922, when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was proclaimed, Soviet Ukraine was part of it, after being invaded by the Bolsheviks following the Russian revolution. Although Soviet Ukraine theoretically retained some domestic control, in reality all decisions were made by the Soviet leadership in Moscow. The Communist party of Ukraine’s membership was less than 20% Ukrainian, so the Bolsheviks had very little support. Initially, from 1923, the Communist party took steps to appease the local population, including encouraging the Ukrainian language and culture and encouraging Ukrainians to join the party. However, by the end of the 1920s, Stalin had taken over as party leader and imposed a new revolution from above, which included banning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, arresting the clergy, and arresting, deporting and executing Ukrainian nationalists and the cultural elite. Intellectuals, writers and artists committed suicide rather than be deported to Russia.
At the same time, the Stalinist Government was embarking on rapid industrialisation, and the cost fell most heavily on the Ukrainian rural classes. Wholesale agricultural collectivisation took place from 1929. Wealthy peasants, known as kulaks, had their property taken away and faced further sanction. By the mid-1930s, 100,000 such families had been deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan. In response to resistance in 1932 and 1933, Stalin’s Government imposed impossibly high grain requisition quotas, which had to be satisfied before any grain could be kept by the local population. In 1932, not a single Ukrainian village met the quota threshold assigned to it. Anyone who kept grain destined for Russia was executed by firing squad. Special police roamed the countryside searching homes and summarily executing those who were found to have stored food. Moscow refused to provide any relief. In fact, at that exact time, Moscow was exporting more than a million tonnes of grain to the west. Callously and cruelly, Stalin shut Ukraine’s eastern border, preventing Ukrainians from fleeing to Russia.
These conditions led to the most horrific situation for the people of Ukraine. Men, women and children starved to death in their villages. This was not a famine; there was enough grain, even with a below average harvest in Ukraine, to comfortably feed the entire population. The grain was exported to Russia, and Ukrainians were prevented from escaping. Again, this was not a naturally occurring famine. This was murder by starvation.
At the height of the famine, 25,000 people died every day of starvation, including children too small to feed themselves, who were reliant on their parents. Some people tried to commit suicide to escape the horror of starving to death. Those who refused to steal or leave died of hunger. Those who tried to steal were shot. Those who tried to leave were returned to their villages to face the same impossible choice. Villages turned to cannibalism to survive. The dead were unburied and the sick untended. These are difficult details to hear, but it is crucial that we appreciate the scale of the Holodomor. There is a large Ukrainian community in Derbyshire. In my meetings with them over the last decade, they have asked me to persist with my efforts to seek recognition of the Holodomor as a genocide.
Raphael Lemkin was an academic and lawyer who coined the term genocide. Lemkin was born in Poland and studied at the University of Lviv in modern-day Ukraine. He defined genocide—a new word coined to denote an old practice. Genocide literally means the killing of a race. Lemkin was influential in the drafting of the genocide convention, an international treaty that criminalises genocide and has been unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. Article II of the convention defines genocide as
“acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.
That specifically includes killing members of the group and imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group. The Holodomor was a genocide.
On the last two occasions that I have brought this debate forward, the relevant Minister has informed the House that His Majesty’s Government will recognise an event as a genocide only once it has been recognised as such by a court. I am no lawyer, but I think it is very clear from the definition that I have set out and the history that I provided that Stalin did set out to destroy, in whole or in part, a national group—the Ukrainians. He did so by killing some, and imposing living conditions —starvation—intended to destroy the group. The fact that millions died from starvation due to Stalin’s policy when Ukraine was not in the grasp of a famine is indicative of that.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for calling for this debate. I visited the Holodomor memorial with other MPs last year. As the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) is outlining, the denial and downplaying of the Holodomor is very damaging, and is having real-world impacts right now in modern-day Ukraine. Twenty-three countries have decided to go ahead and declare the Holodomor a genocide. They include Australia, Canada, Germany, Ireland and even the European Parliament. Does the hon. Member agree that this is an important time to stop denying this, and to declare the Holodomor a genocide?
Mrs Latham
Yes. I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. That is absolutely why this debate is so important—because we cannot deny the genocide any longer. It has to be recognised by this Government, because we will be—we are—an outlier.
Stalin set out to destroy the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians were not in the grasp of famine. He deported the cultural elite and suppressed Ukrainian culture, and there was the breaking of the rural communities. Stalin’s closure of the borders and refusal to send aid, despite selling millions of tonnes of grain to the west, are yet further proof. His desire to end Ukrainian identity is absolutely clear, and Soviet actions in the aftermath of the Holodomor—decimated villages were resettled with ethnically Russian communities—are conclusive.
Raphael Lemkin put the matter very clearly in a speech at the 20th commemoration of the Holodomor in New York City in 1953. He described the Holodomor as
“perhaps the classic example of Soviet genocide, its longest and broadest experiment in Russification—the destruction of the Ukrainian nation.”
He recognised that there were no attempts at “complete annihilation”, as had taken place in the holocaust. However, his most powerful quote is as follows:
“And yet, if the Soviet program succeeds completely, if the intelligentsia, the priests and the peasants can be eliminated, Ukraine will be as dead as if every Ukrainian were killed, for it will have lost that part of it which has kept and developed its culture, its beliefs, its common ideas, which have guided it and given it a soul, which, in short, made it a nation rather than a mass of people.”
The Lemkin quote sets out very clearly why the Holodomor amounts to a genocide. It also leads me on perfectly to another reason why today’s debate is so important. Those words, delivered by him 70 years ago, resonate with us today. Ukraine is once again threatened by Russian expansionism. Thankfully, Stalin failed, and the culture, beliefs and common ideas, the very soul of Ukraine, survived. On countless occasions in the last year, we have paid tribute in this House to the spirit and soul of the Ukrainian people in their battle against Putin.
The UK Government should always recognise crimes against humanity, including genocide, wherever they happen. In my last debate on this subject, it was suggested to me that official international recognition is less important than the memory of these events in defeating genocide. I do not agree. In my experience of serving on the Select Committee on International Development, I have visited both Rwanda and Bosnia, and have seen the peace processes that followed the Rwanda genocide and the Srebrenica massacre. Those have both been recognised as genocides by the UK Government, and that matters to the people. In any case, the Holodomor is now 90 years ago. Although my local Ukrainian community is brilliant at arranging annual commemorations and campaigning on this issue, the Holodomor is now almost out of human living memory. International recognition is absolutely crucial for local communities, and it is no surprise that the Ukrainian Government have welcomed a host of countries’ recognising the Holodomor as a genocide.
Recognition matters to the other side, too. In October 2022, when Russian forces took Mariupol, they tore down the Holodomor memorial, saying that it represented disinformation at the state level. It is clearly important to both the victims and the perpetrators when such an event is formally recognised.
That brings me on to my second point about recognition. I said that the Government should always recognise genocide when it occurs, and that is true, but in this case there is an even more obvious reason to do so. Ukraine is threatened again, and its strongest allies around the world are standing up and supporting it. That is why the delegation went a couple of weeks ago to stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian nation and say, “We support you.”
As the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) said, Canada, Ireland, Australia and many other countries have long recognised the Holodomor as a genocide. In May 2022, the US Congress passed a resolution recognising the Holodomor as a genocide and condemning Soviet policies that prevented the delivery of humanitarian aid and people from escaping. There are clear overtones of what is happening in current times. Germany, Romania and Moldova recognised the Holodomor as recently as November 2022, so we are fast becoming an international outlier by refusing to acknowledge the suffering of the Ukrainian people at the hands of the Soviets in the 1930s, while at the same time supporting them in their fight today.
In the war on Ukraine, as I heard during my visit, Russians have been accused of crimes against humanity. We saw evidence of that. We saw the piled-up, burned-out, shot-at cars of people who were trying to escape the Russians. Civilians were slaughtered as part of what Russia is doing to Ukraine. We must give confidence to the Ukrainian Government and the international legal order that the UK Government and Parliament will not stand for abuses of human rights and war crimes. We can do that by recognising where genocide took place. Indeed, that may be important in the future. I raised this matter with the Foreign Secretary in the House in February, and he noted that Putin has himself said
“that his intention is to eradicate the whole concept of Ukraine.”—[Official Report, 20 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 60.]
If that is not genocide, I do not know what is.
A final reason why it is important officially to recognise the Holodomor as a genocide is because of our Ukrainian communities in the UK. Since February 2022, thanks to the generosity of the British people, those communities have increased exponentially in size. I know from my experience in Derbyshire that it would mean a huge amount to Ukrainians in the UK if we were able to recognise the Holodomor as a genocide. I met a family on Friday who said, “Please, get the Government to recognise it. It would mean so much to the people of Ukraine.”
I therefore have two asks of the Minister. First and most importantly, will he please reconsider the official Government position that a genocide will be recognised only after a court has adjudicated on it, given the evidence that I set out, and the unique circumstances? In the light of the war in Ukraine, we need to show our support for our allies; we need to show Putin that attempts to eradicate the Ukrainian people will not be tolerated. If the US, Germany, Canada, Australia and Ukraine can recognise the genocide, we can and should, too, particularly if it can have an impact on the war.
Secondly, if His Majesty’s Government are unable to break their policy and recognise the Holodomor—I hope I am wrong about that—would the Minister be willing to arrange a debate on the issue, and a meaningful vote on it on the Floor of the House, so that the UK Parliament can at least can show its support for Ukraine, and designate the Holodomor a genocide?
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask for a parliamentary debate, which would show that there is a lot of sympathy for officially designating the Holodomor a genocide. She may be aware that the European Parliament voted to do so by 507 votes; only 12 voted against. That sent a powerful signal to Ukraine that the European Parliament was behind it.
Mrs Latham
It is a powerful signal to send and we should not be found lacking; we should send that powerful signal. Even Derby City Council has recognised that the Holodomor is a genocide. We have a plaque in Derby city centre that was supported by the whole council, and all the Ukrainians living in the area came to celebrate when we unveiled it. If all these other people can do it, I do not understand why the Government cannot.
The Holodomor was an atrocious, calculated murder of millions of Ukrainians designed to destroy the Ukrainian nation. Today, Putin is using a military invasion, which has exactly the same objective. In Kyiv, we went to the Holodomor Museum, and interestingly, all the exhibits have been taken away to protect them, but there are photographs of them because people are so concerned about Putin coming forward and creating yet another genocide. Now is the time to acknowledge the Holodomor as a genocide: to provide a warning to Putin that crimes against humanity will not be tolerated in Ukraine and that the UK stands squarely behind Ukraine in its defence of its sovereignty and its people’s rights.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) on securing this debate; she was my colleague on the delegation that went out to Kyiv two weeks ago. It is also a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), with whom I shared the van journey from London to Lviv as part of that convoy.
It is right that we reflect on the Holodomor and its role in history. It was a dark time in Ukraine’s history, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire rightly pointed out. Millions of people starved to death, not because there was a natural disaster or some blight that swept through the land, but because of a calculated policy decision. It was part of a general attempt to destroy the Ukrainian people and their identity and to make them subservient to the state based in Moscow, at the time led by Joseph Stalin. It is that core that resonates so firmly in today’s situation.
History is a battleground in Ukraine. It is clear from President Putin’s statements that he wants people to believe that Ukraine is just a political construct of the 1990s and that there is no history and identity, and not something that separates people from being part of Russia. It is part of his clear view that the Soviet Union should be back together, with him, of course, as its dictator. This is not a man who wants to create any form of democracy or respect for rights in the nations and lands that he wishes and seeks to control.
That is why this debate is so timely. It is not just a historical exercise. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, the events are still within living memory. It is about fighting back today—when it is highly relevant—against the narrative that the lands of Ukraine are an extension of Russia, which they most certainly are not. Ukrainians are a historic people with their own language, culture and identity, which they literally fight every day to defend.
It was good to be out in Ukraine and to see the commitment there to standing firm, as well as the gratitude for the support. The reality is that Ukraine would not survive and be fighting today were it not for us and other nations and democracies giving them, and continuing to give them, the tools to do that job. We must not allow the fact that a year has passed to be a reason to slacken off our support. It is vital that that continues, especially as we see the Russian attacks continue, in particular around Bakhmut.
There are echoes of history and what Stalin did in some of the footage that has come out this week. We should be under no illusion: the Russian Federation is no respecter of international law on either aggression or human rights—or, for that matter, the most basic rules of warfare when it comes to those taken as prisoners of war. It is clear that it has very little respect for any international norms. Again, that is why it is so vital that, as a nation that believes in and respects the international rules-based order, we are there supporting Ukraine and making that contribution.
It is apt that we are having this debate, and that we talk about recognising the Holodomor for what it was. It was a calculated attempt to wipe out a nation and turn its lands to a different perspective. It was what we would call, in more modern terminology, ethnic cleansing in the effort by Joseph Stalin to dominate and assimilate a whole area within the empire that he had formed at that time. Given the backdrop of the war in Ukraine, it is timely now to respect this piece of history and to make it clear what it was. We also make clear our absolute condemnation of what happened then and our resolve to ensure that the Ukrainian nation today survives and flourishes.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) on securing this important debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on his powerful speech. I, too, was on the delegation to Kyiv last week and went to the Holodomor memorial with hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who intervened earlier.
There is no doubt, and complete consensus among historians, that the Holodomor famine happened. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire pointed out, the scale of it is under dispute, but it was clearly a famine, clearly man-made and clearly a deliberate act by Stalin. It was not just starvation, but an attempt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay said, to wipe out the Ukrainian nation. It was an attempt to Russify the whole area. Russia deliberately targeted Ukrainian culture—trying to wipe it out—and the Ukrainian elites. By all historical definitions of genocide, it was clearly a genocide. It was an attempt to ethnically cleanse Ukraine.
That is so important because if we do not confront and accept the tragedies of history, we are doomed to repeat them. Throughout its history, Ukraine has been in a fight for its survival against Russia. There is a pattern of behaviour where Russia has tried to simply wipe out Ukraine as a nation. It tried to do it 90 years ago with the Holodomor massacre, and it is clearly trying to do the same now. Unless we understand and appreciate the historical context, we do not realise the significance of what is happening now.
When we were in Kyiv, we discussed the Russia abductions of Ukrainian children with various human rights groups. The Russians are stealing and abducting Ukrainian children, taking them into Russia and Russifying them—forcing them to sing Russian songs, speak Russian and everything else. There could be no clearer example of attempted ethnic cleansing. It is on a small scale at the moment, but it is absolutely horrifying. Unless we realise that this is about Ukraine’s cultural survival and its survival as a nation, what Russia is doing with Ukrainian children simply does not make sense.
I fully support giving greater recognition to the Holodomor as a genocide. As we have heard, many other countries, including many of our closest allies, have done so. It has been recognised as a genocide by the United States Senate, Germany and many EU countries, including Ireland, Poland and Romania, the EU Parliament, Australia, Canada and Brazil. The Ukrainian people clearly want us to do this—there is no doubt. We discussed it with various Ukrainian leaders, and it would mean a huge amount to them politically. They are very grateful that we give Ukraine all this military support, and they would not have the success that they are having on the battlefield without it, but it would mean so much to them—more in terms of moral support—if we recognised the Holodomor as a massacre. The fight that they are having is really a continuation of a fight that has been going on for a century.
I urge the Government to think about what they can do to consider the Holodomor as a genocide. I appreciate that the Government have constraints: we cannot recognise everything as a genocide that people want recognised as a genocide, and the formal position is that it must be recognised in court. Perhaps there are other ways. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire said, we could have a meaningful vote in Parliament about it, and I would certainly support that.
I will end with this observation. I found visiting the Holodomor memorial incredibly moving, and I am talking not just about the horrific photos about the famine and the stories of the extraordinary suffering, but about the fact that we did so in a situation where all the exhibits had to be replaced by photographs, because the Ukrainians were really worried that the Russians would succeed in doing this again. That is obviously completely unacceptable, and it shows us the reality that this is not some distant historical event from 90 years ago; the Ukrainians are fighting a similar sort of battle now. I urge the Government to do what they can to give as much support as possible to Ukraine by recognising the Holodomor as a genocide.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. Like others, I begin by sincerely commending the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) not just for her efforts to secure this debate, but for her long-standing interest in and advocacy for the Ukrainian nation and the Ukrainian people, for which she was recognised by President Zelensky. I believe that she and I were honoured on the same day back in 2019, as she is a fellow recipient of Ukraine’s order of merit, and like me, I am sure she holds that dear.
Millions of people were killed in one of Europe’s most heinous crimes, which happened in Ukraine in the 1930s. To my amazement, very few people know all that much about it. Until maybe six or seven years ago, I would have included myself among such people. However, because of such things as the work of the Holodomor Museum in Kyiv and the work of Ukrainian diasporas all around the world, including in this country, more and more people are understanding the true horrors of what took place.
Like other Members who have spoken, I have visited the museum in Kyiv a number of times. On my last visit there in September last year, I was with a friend of mine, who I am sure is known to many in this Chamber—Alyona Shkrum, a member of the Verkhovna Rada. She pointed out to me in the books and registers the members of her family—she can trace them back a long time—who are listed, and that really brings it home. When people go to that small museum, they see a small, solemn and sacred space, which—unfortunately but understandably, as other Members have pointed out—has had to be emptied somewhat just in case the Russians succeeded in taking Kyiv. Thankfully, that never happened.
I will outline two pieces of work that have brought the issue of the Holodomor to the masses. One is a 2019 film, “Mr Jones”, which I am sure the Labour Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), will come back to, as a proud Welshman. As well as watching that film, which is an excellent modern depiction of what truly went on, we should not forget the heroic work of Gareth Jones in exposing, or trying to expose, what was really happening at the time, much to the annoyance of many, including the Government here.
I will also mention the excellent, highly detailed and grim book written by the inimitable Anne Applebaum, “Red Famine”. Anyone who reads the detail of that book will learn more about the cruelty of what really went on during the Holodomor. As has been mentioned, there were forced deportations, killings by firing squads and death forced upon people through starvation. Trying to stay alive was indeed a death sentence for millions.
As others have said, we have seen echoes of that in the modern conflict, not least by the Russians trying to use grain as a weapon of war—not just against people in Ukraine, but against people in some of the poorest parts of the world. Just as the Holodomor was indeed a genocide that should be recognised by the Government, we are seeing those patterns come back again today, because the attempt to suppress and even deny Ukrainian statehood, culture and institutions, as well as the country’s language, history, art and people, is central to the prosecution of Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Like others, although I want to see the genocide recognised by the Government, I fully appreciate the constraints within which the Minister has to operate, but I am left wondering what else we can do as a Parliament, and what else we can do in our communities, to draw attention to one of Europe’s darkest crimes. I am bound to mention that I was pleased a few years ago, under the former Ukrainian ambassador to the UK, to see the unveiling of a new Holodomor memorial in Edinburgh.
I will end with a few words from Ukraine’s national poet and patriot, Taras Shevchenko. Although he died many years before the Holodomor came into existence, his work and poetry provides Ukrainians—indeed, all Europeans—with an understanding of the freedom that Ukrainians are currently dying for. In his poem “The Days Go By”, he said:
“It’s terrible to lie in chains,
To rot in dungeon deep,
But it’s still worse, when you are free
To sleep, and sleep, and sleep.”
I am proud of the support that this country’s Government have given to Ukraine. I am pleased that there is such phenomenal cross-party support for Ukraine—it is perhaps the only issue that enjoys such strong cross-party support—and we are not asleep. Ukraine is still fighting for its freedom, and essential to that modern freedom is recognising what happened to it under the Stalin regime, so I would like to see the Government recognise the Holodomor as a genocide. Short of that, this Parliament should act to do so, and we should ensure that the horrors of those years are known by more people not just in this country, but elsewhere across Europe, so that it truly never happens again.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Pritchard, and I thank the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for bringing this issue to the House. I thank all colleagues who have participated for their insightful, powerful and considered remarks on this truly appalling moment in Ukraine’s history, and for linking it to the terrible events that we see today. I hope that the Minister can respond to the sincere questions that have been raised by all Members present.
I am not allowed to refer to the Gallery, but we have been joined in Parliament today by Lesia Zaburanna, who is a Member of the Rada. She has been speaking to many of us—
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. Under a recent ruling, you can refer to somebody in the Gallery, and I am sure the hon. Member would not wish to miss that opportunity.
Stephen Doughty
I will not miss that opportunity. I am delighted that Ms Zaburanna joins us in the Gallery for this debate. She is a Member of Parliament for Kyiv and has been here speaking to Members across the House. I am sure that today’s proceedings and the meetings that we have had with colleagues have shown her that the UK’s resolve and commitment to Ukraine has never been stronger; indeed, it exists on a cross-party basis across the House.
As we passed a tragic milestone last month, we must all continue to reflect on the immense suffering that Ukraine has endured, as well as the remarkable courage and resilience of its people and the progress that they have made in driving Russia back. It is clearer than ever that Putin must be defeated in Ukraine, and we must continue to stand full square behind Ukraine, to strengthen Ukraine’s hand on the battlefield, to support relief and reconstruction, to deliver justice, to maintain western unity, to isolate Putin and to undermine Russia’s barbaric war effort.
We were all incredibly moved by President Zelensky’s speech to us in Westminster Hall just a few weeks ago. As I say regularly in these debates, the Government will continue to have Labour’s full support in confronting the threat that Russia poses to the whole of Europe and the whole world, and in holding it to account for the terrible things it has done in Ukraine.
This debate has brought home the fact that today’s illegal, unconscionable war comes after a history of Ukraine being subjected to immense brutality, especially in the terrible events of the Holodomor, one of the most atrocious instances of man-made famine in European history, which culminated in the deaths of millions of people. I have also visited the museum and memorial in Kyiv just a few months ago—many Members have referred to it. It is incredibly moving. Everybody should see it to recognise the reality of what happened to the Ukrainian people.
Stalin’s role in catalysing enforced, man-made, widespread starvation in 1932 and 1933 understandably, and rightly, lives on in the Ukrainian national psyche. The barbarism we saw 90 years ago carries as much salience today as it ever has, particularly given what we have seen since.
The personal stories are the most harrowing. A congressional commission that took evidence in the late 1980s heard from an individual who grew up in the village of Stavyshche, who spoke of watching people dig into empty gardens with bare hands, in a desperate bid to find anything to eat; of witnessing people bloated from extreme malnutrition collapse on the road one by one; and, of course, of the mass graves. It is a tragedy that we again see mass graves in Ukraine. We have witnessed and heard the terrible stories of atrocities being committed.
As with the war today, there was a clear perpetrator behind the famine. Stalin’s motivation to transform and mould the Ukrainian nation in his own image, at any cost, is mirrored in Putin’s warped, imperialist world view today, the consequences of which continue to devastate the lives of Ukrainians. Putin’s misguided and perverse attempts to wipe Ukrainian identity are the most recent manifestation of Russia’s penchant for interference, subjugation, war and atrocities.
This debate carries particular weight for me as a Welsh MP. The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) mentioned Gareth Jones. Much of what we know about the Holodomor is because of the bravery of that one Welshman. He was born a few miles away from my constituency, in Barry in the Vale of Glamorgan, in 1905. After witnessing the horrible consequences of Stalin’s tyranny first hand, he detailed those consequences. He wrote:
“I walked along through villages and 12 collective farms. Everywhere was the cry, “There is no bread. We are dying.”…In the train a Communist denied to me that there was a famine. I flung a crust of bread which I had been eating from my own supply into a spittoon. A peasant fellow-passenger fished it out and ravenously ate it. I threw an orange peel into the same spittoon and the peasant again grabbed and devoured it. The Communist subsided.”
Jones defied Soviet attempts to censor him and reported the truth of the Holodomor to millions. Yet the Kremlin of course continued to deny the existence of the famine. The mendacious campaign that tried to silence Gareth could not.
The parallels with today are striking. Journalists, correspondents and reporters from many countries, not least Ukraine itself, are putting themselves in danger to expose the true extent of Russia’s barbarism. They are absolutely integral to thwarting Putin’s concerted information war and to bringing justice in terms of investigating war crimes and atrocities.
I have a few questions for the Minister. Today in Parliament, we have been talking about the crime of aggression and war crimes. I understand that the Government have now opted to join a working group on holding Putin to account for the crime of aggression. Could the Minister say a little more on the progress of that group?
We have seen concerted attempts by Russia to lie about food supplies to the rest of the world. In a dreadful parallel to the way it used food as a weapon of war in the Holodomor, it is now doing so with the rest of the world. Despite the grain deal, it continues to frustrate. What can the Minister say about what we are doing to tell the world the truth about Russia’s continued interference with world food supplies from Ukraine, including on the mining of Ukrainian agricultural land?
Finally, what can the Minister say about the crucial attempts that are going to be needed to rebuild Ukraine, its agricultural capacity, its ability to thrive, and its economy in the future? What are we doing to seize assets, not just freeze them? What steps are the Government further taking, given the cross-party consensus on the issue and the need to generate more resources for reconstruction?
Historically and today, the price that Ukrainians have had to pay for their freedom is immense. The events of 90 years ago are an anguishing reminder of the consequences when tyranny runs without constraint and imperialism without restriction. We must stand united in this House against it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) and to all colleagues for their contributions; my hon. Friend’s contribution was moving and thoughtful. I also appreciated the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster); he spoke of the echoes of history, which was particularly relevant. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) also spoke of his experiences on the delegation. I am very grateful to them for bringing their collective experience to the attention of colleagues today.
I was also grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) for his contribution. He referred to the work of Gareth Jones—I am sure many people will be pleased to know that they can watch that film, which will no doubt be of interest—and the terrific scholarship of Anne Applebaum. I was touched that he quoted the national poet, which I thought was particularly apposite. As ever, I was very grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for his continued support for our collective resolve to support our Ukrainian friends in their efforts to liberate their territory and maintain their sovereignty. I join him in warmly welcoming our colleague from Ukraine—it is very good to see her in the Gallery, and I hope she has found this debate of interest.
Turning to the specific questions asked by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, which I welcome, I can confirm that we are indeed in the G7’s core group of nations looking at what additional mechanism might be required to work alongside the International Criminal Court when it comes to countering crimes in Ukraine. That work is in progress, but we will keep the House updated and informed; it is something we are leaning into, because we need to acknowledge that not everything will be able to be covered off by the ICC. When it comes to the appalling disinformation spread by Putin’s regime, particularly with regard to the global south, we are doing a lot of work to counter that disinformation and promote the Black sea grain initiative, ensuring that there is an ongoing flow and that people know that the vast majority of it is ending up in the global south—it is not just for western European nations.
Quite rightly, the hon. Gentleman talked about our collective efforts to help Ukraine rebuild itself. As he will know, we are very pleased to be hosting the next reconstruction conference in London in June, at the invitation of our Ukrainian friends and alongside them. That is the successor to the Lugano conference held by the Swiss last year, and it will be a very important moment to map out how private capital, particularly, will be able to find itself in Ukraine, helping the reconstruction effort. The hon. Gentleman asked a pertinent question about seizing frozen assets. That is something that we continue to look at; clearly, there are very significant frozen assets in the UK—some £19 billion, £2 billion of which are Russian state assets. We continue to look at that issue, because we know it is of urgent pertinence and relevance to the justified efforts of the Ukrainians to rebuild their society.
Turning to the subject of the Holodomor, we have heard today in moving terms how 90 years ago, millions of men, women and children lost their lives in that forced, deliberate famine, victims of Stalin’s brutal regime. Of course, it is an echo from history today, because Ukrainians are again suffering from terror fomented in Moscow at the hands of Putin’s brutal regime, so I pay tribute to those who keep alive the memory of the Holodomor and its victims—we must never forget them. Of course, the Prime Minister visited Kyiv in November and lit a candle at the memorial for those victims. I was pleased that colleagues recounted their own experience of doing a similar thing, because today we stand firm in our support of the Ukrainians amid growing evidence of appalling atrocities committed during this outrageous and illegal war. As I have indicated, we are actively supporting Ukraine to investigate and prosecute those responsible, as well as the investigation by the ICC. We will continue to exert institutional effort and resource, empowering Ukrainians to ensure that there is a very clear line and operational strand of accountability.
Turning directly to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire, of course, I entirely understand why colleagues have today called for the Government to recognise the Holodomor as a genocide. In response to her first question, I say gently that it is a long-standing policy of the Government that any judgment on whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent court, rather than Governments or non-judicial bodies. Our long-standing approach provides a clear, impartial and independent measure for the determination of whether genocide has occurred. Of course, I know that is not what she wants to hear, but let me be clear that in no way does that detract from our recognition of the Holodomor as an appalling tragedy, its importance in the history of Ukraine and Europe, and the contemporary pertinence. My hon. Friend asked whether there might be a debate on the Floor of the House and a meaningful vote. That is a matter for the Leader of the House, but I know my hon. Friend will not be backwards in coming forward to seek out that opportunity. I thank her sincerely for raising these issues in this forum, not least because it affords us an opportunity to reflect on recent events.
We should remember that, since 2014, thousands have been killed by Putin’s forces. Since the full-scale invasion, over 50% of Ukraine’s pre-war population—21 million—have needed humanitarian assistance either inside or outside Ukraine. We should remember the scale of the impact and, of course, it draws parallels with the 1930s. Russian forces have attacked Ukrainian hospitals, schools and energy supplies, leaving cities in ruins. In areas of Ukraine liberated from Russian forces, the Russians leave behind mass graves, as well as evidence of rape and torture on an unimaginable scale.
Ultimately, one man is responsible for the devastation left in the wake of Russia’s forces. Putin’s invasion was unprovoked and illegal. He has started a war he cannot win. It is our judgment that his army is on the defensive. Ukraine’s heroic armed forces have recaptured thousands of square miles. We are proud to continue to work with our allies to ensure that Ukraine gets the support it needs to win this war, secure a lasting peaceand bring to justice those responsible for war crimes and atrocities in accordance with international law.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) raised an important point about the terrible reports we have all heard of the forced deportation of children and the separation of families in an attempt to Russify them to deny them their Ukrainian heritage. Again, there are all sorts of awful parallels with the impact on children during the Holodomor. Will the Minister say a little about our current assessment and what we are doing to bring those responsible to account?
Leo Docherty
I will, gladly. We are working with the Ukrainians to invest energy and resource to build capacity for them to record these crimes, so that there is a trail of accountability; so Karim Khan and the International Criminal Court can hold these people to account. That is not least for its deterrent effect, so I welcome the hon. Member’s question.
I will not recount at length the suite of military, humanitarian and economic support we are giving, but it totals nearly £4 billion. We continue to be the largest supplier of military aid to Ukraine after the United States. Importantly, we will keep this going. We expect to spend £2.4 billion on military support for Ukraine this financial year and have committed to £2.3 billion or more of support next financial year. That is important to note because this will be a matter of resolve, and we must send a clear signal that our resolve is not failing. In terms of economic and humanitarian support, we are proud that we are providing more than £1.6 billion in non-military assistance. Clearly, Putin is now completely diplomatically isolated. Sanctions are beginning to bite. We have co-ordinated sanctions with our international allies to impose a huge cost, freezing a combined £275 billion of Russian assets. So our response is having effect.
When it comes to war crimes, there are some important next steps. We are supporting the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine to help it investigate, as I have referred to, and set itself up to prosecute alleged war crimes. Colleagues should know that the Justice Secretary will host a major international meeting later this month to support war crime investigations by the ICC. So that important strand of work will progress. I have already mentioned our support and hosting of the recovery conference, which is hugely important.
To conclude, we have heard a moving evocation of the fact that the Holodomor and its modern parallel are two of the darkest chapters in Ukraine’s history. Our stance is that any determination on genocide must be made by the courts. That does not distract from our recognition of the Holodomor as the most appalling tragedy—one that resonates today in the face of renewed Russian aggression. The UK is supporting our heroic Ukrainian friends to fight back, and it is our honour to do so. That includes supporting Ukraine’s judicial system and the ICC to investigate and prosecute alleged war crimes.
When President Zelensky addressed both Houses, a short distance from where we are today, he said “Freedom will win.” We know that that desire, and the desire for justice to prevail, unites the entire House.
Mrs Latham
I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in this debate, especially those who came a couple of weeks ago to see Ukraine. I am incredibly disappointed, yet again, by the Minister. He said that this is what we always do; we do not recognise genocide retrospectively. We could do; we could change our view. The Foreign Office could change its view as to how it recognises a genocide. It is not just an unfortunate event; it is millions of people who were slaughtered by famine. They were not slaughtered with a gun or a knife; they were slaughtered by starvation to death. Surely, in this day and age, this Government should be able to change what we have always done before, and recognise the Holodomor as a genocide.
The Holodomor was the most horrific thing. It is so important to Ukrainians in this country and around the world for us to recognise it. I am absolutely devastated that the Minister has said no more than we have heard before. I feel completely let down, as I am sure other Ukrainian descendants feel, when this Government still say, “Oh, it was unfortunate. Yes, it is really sad, but it’s not a genocide, because we don’t recognise those sorts of things.” It is ridiculous. I plead with the Minister to go back to the Foreign Office and say that it is about time we changed our attitude and recognised the Holodomor in Ukraine as a genocide.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Ukrainian Holodomor and the war in Ukraine.
5.27 pm
Sitting adjourned.
Written Statements
India Trade Negotiations
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
The seventh round of UK-India free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations began on 6 February and concluded on 10 February. As with previous rounds, this was conducted in a hybrid fashion—Indian officials travelled to London for negotiations and others attended virtually.
Technical discussions were held across 11 policy areas over 43 separate sessions. They included detailed draft treaty text discussions in these chapters.
Both sides are working toward a balanced deal that will build on our enhanced trade partnership. The UK-India trade relationship was worth £34 billion in the year to quarter 3 of 2022. A balanced deal that respects the domestic sensitives of both sides will strengthen the economic links between the UK and India, boosting the UK economy and bringing benefits to UK businesses, families and consumers. In this negotiation, as with all our FTA negotiations, the NHS and the services it provides are not on the table.
The eighth round of negotiations is due to take place later this spring.
The Government will continue to keep Parliament updated as these negotiations progress.
[HCWS604]
Security and Intelligence Agencies: Contingencies Fund Advance
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The security and intelligence agencies have presented a supplementary estimate for approval to Parliament in the central Government supply estimates booklet—HC 1133, published on 21 February). Full details can be found on www.gov.uk. As it will be some time before the associated legislation receives Royal Assent, the agencies are seeking an advance from the Contingencies Fund in order to meet contractual commitments.
Parliamentary approval for additional resource of £140,017,000 has been sought in a supplementary estimate for the security and intelligence agencies. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £140,017,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
As the security and intelligence agencies are non-ministerial departments, I am making this statement on behalf of their accounting officer to ensure that Parliament is informed of this advance from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS607]
HM Revenue and Customs Update
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)
From April 2013, the Government permitted individuals to retrospectively build their April 2006 to April 2016 National Insurance (NICs) record through voluntary contributions as part of transitional arrangements introduced alongside the new state pension. The deadline for voluntary contributions was set for 5 April 2023.
His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions have experienced a recent surge in customer contact. To ensure that customers do not miss out, the Government intend to extend the 5 April deadline to pay voluntary NICs to 31 July this year. This applies to years that would otherwise have been out of time to pay after 5 April, up to and including the 2016-17 tax year. All voluntary NICs payments will be accepted at the existing 2022-23 rates until 31 July.
[HCWS608]
Consultation on the English Portion of Dormant Assets Funding: Government Response
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
Today, the Government have announced that community wealth funds will join youth, financial inclusion, and social investment wholesalers as the named purposes of the English portion of dormant assets funding. This follows a public consultation last year, where we heard views from over 3,300 people, organisations, and financial services industry participants. The responses were clear that we must build on the successes of the scheme so far and ensure it continues to deliver the greatest impact possible.
To date, the money has been put to work tackling barriers to employment for disadvantaged young people; supporting households to get out of problem debt; and investing in charities and social enterprises across the country. Soon, a community wealth fund will join these three causes and empower local people to make decisions on how best to improve their neighbourhoods.
We have chosen these causes because the consultation made clear the strength of support for each of them and because we believe they strike the right balance between amplifying the progress that has been made to date while driving forward new innovations. This will allow us to build upon the solid foundations to develop an expanded scheme that is not only right for now, but also for the years ahead.
The dormant assets scheme continues to be underpinned by the voluntary participation of financial services firms. Its expansion through primary legislation last year marked the beginning of a long-term programme of work to unlock an estimated £880 million more across the UK over time. With £738 million of this to be apportioned for England, now is the right time to ensure the current impact of the scheme is amplified and to focus on the careful design of a community wealth fund set to last decades.
A community wealth fund is a pot of money distributed to communities in deprived areas and released over a long time period. In line with the community wealth fund’s focus on giving more decision-making power to people, we will soon launch a technical consultation on the design of this important new initiative to ensure the public’s views are embedded into the way it will operate in practice. Once Parliament has passed secondary legislation to include this new cause, eligible communities will be empowered to make decisions on how best to use the money to improve their areas.
The Government have also announced today that some of the most vulnerable people in society will be given additional support to deal with the cost of living, as £76 million from the current scheme is unlocked. Beneficiaries include no-interest loans for 69,000 individuals struggling with finances via a £45 million grant distributed by Fair4AII Finance, and £31 million of investment for hundreds of charities and social enterprises, distributed by social investors Access and Big Society Capital. This will be used to retrofit premises with cleaner, greener and more efficient energy systems, such as new boilers or heat pumps, solar panels, and new lighting.
The dormant assets scheme is a perfect example of what happens when the public, private, and civil society sectors come together, in partnership, to drive change and support those most in need. The Government look forward to continuing this important work to make a real difference to people’s lives across the country.
[HCWS611]
Lifelong Loan Entitlement Consultation: Government Response
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
Today I am announcing the publication of the lifelong loan entitlement (LLE) Government consultation response.
In 2020, the Government announced that they would introduce a lifelong loan entitlement to give people the opportunity to study, train, retrain and upskill throughout their lives to respond to changing skills needs and employment patterns—which is key to breaking the cycle of lower skills and lack of opportunity which affects too many of our communities.
In February 2022, the Government launched the LLE consultation seeking views on the key design principles of the LLE and how this will mean the current system in England will need to change.
The LLE consultation and supporting engagement activity ended in May 2022 and the Department for Education has spent time analysing the considerable insight and rich data gathered during the consultation, which included extensive stakeholder engagement.
This consultation response puts in no doubt this Government’s intention to deliver a radical shift in our tertiary education system and sets out the policy design across a number of key areas. We will unify the student finance system for further and higher education across levels 4, 5 and 6, bringing them closer together, ensuring all higher education courses whether academic or technical will be funded in the same way and allowing for stronger partnership between further and higher education.
Under the LLE, eligible learners will be able to access an entitlement to the equivalent of four years’ post-18 education funding—£37,000 in today’s fees.
There will be a single student loan finance system for courses between levels 4 and 6. Learners will be able to use their LLE to access a wide range of courses including all courses previously funded under HE student finance, higher technical qualifications, and courses at levels 4 and 5 previously funded through advanced learner loans where there is clear learner demand and employer endorsement.
We also recognise that labour markets can change rapidly and we therefore want to ensure that learners can retrain, upskill or reskill at an equivalent qualification level. That is why we will be removing the restrictions on equivalent or lower qualification to provide increased flexibility to learners.
Furthermore, the Government want to make sure all learners receive the right amount of student support to complete their studies. That is why, from September 2025, maintenance will be available for all designated courses and modules with in-person attendance.
This represents a significant change from the current system: for the first time, we will expand access to the maintenance loan and targeted support grants for all designated courses and modules the LLE funds, including for part-time study. The availability of this support on a part-time basis will open up opportunities for learners for whom full-time study is not possible because of other commitments. The new budget for targeted grants will be agreed and set out at the next spending review, alongside further detail on the entitlements.
The Government will for the first time allow learners to access student finance for more flexible modules of higher and further education courses. This will enable lifelong learning by allowing individuals to build up to full qualifications over a longer time period, creating new retraining and upskilling opportunities, while retaining existing funding for those studying full courses. Like getting on and off a train, they will be able to alight and board their post-school education when it suits them, rather than being confined to a single ticket.
Making sure everyone can continue to access high-quality education and training in a way that works for them at any stage of their life or their career is of utmost importance for this Government. To ensure we get this right we will be taking a phased approach to introducing funding for modules, focusing initially on job-focused higher technical qualifications and some technical qualifications at levels 4 and 5, and extending to wider level 4, 5 and 6 courses at a later date. This offer will allow more people to climb the ladder of opportunity—for instance, by taking advantage of the in-demand skills provided by HTQs, in an even more flexible modular format.
And to further ensure quality, there will be clear criteria for modules to be eligible for funding, as set out in our response to the consultation. As previously announced and as set out in the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill, the LLE will introduce a system whereby fee limits are set using credits. This will provide consistency across the sector in the way fee caps are applied.
The Government have committed to making the student finance system fairer for learners and taxpayers. As announced in February 2022, for all new courses starting from 1 August 2023 onwards, student loans will be issued on new plan 5 terms and conditions, which will see learners benefit from a reduction in the interest rate to RPI only. Plan 5 terms also mean learners only repay when earning over £25,000 and have a loan term of 40 years, after which any outstanding debt, including interest accrued, will be written off at no detriment to the borrower. We will continue to keep the terms of the student finance system under review to ensure that it remains fair to students and fair to taxpayers.
To ensure learners can easily navigate the courses that will be eligible for funding under the LLE, anyone who applies for funding will get an LLE personal account. This will be an online digital platform where learners will be able to view their entitlement, access information about courses to help them make informed choices about their learning pathways, and apply for loans and grants for fees, maintenance, and additional support.
Finally, I can confirm that the Government remain committed to delivering an alternative student finance (ASF) product compatible with Islamic finance principles. Our aim is that students will be able to access ASF as soon as possible after 2025.
The changes which I have set out today will have long-lasting, systematic impacts on the landscape of post-18 education affecting future generations of learners for years to come. Learners and employers alike will reap the rewards of a more flexible system that reflects and can adapt to changes in personal circumstances and the economy.
I believe that this package of measures is essential to deliver the transformation of student finance that this we need. Together they will create a fundamental shift in the way higher education is accessed, making it easier for people to train or retrain in a way that works for them and get the job they want.
More work is needed to make the LLE a reality, and this will need effort from both Government, providers and industry, but our Government response to this consultation is a major milestone toward this vision for a more dynamic and growing economy.
I want to thank all those who took their time to respond to this consultation and engage with the Department on an ongoing basis; their contributions will have a lasting impact in delivering the LLE. I look forward to continuing the hard work required to allow the launch of the new system in 2025, and to support learners to continue to acquire the skills they need to succeed in life.
Further details and the full Government consultation response can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/lifelong-loan-entitlement.
[HCWS605]
Covid-19 Vaccine Update
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
His Majesty’s Government are committed to protecting people most vulnerable to covid-19 through vaccination as guided by the independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.
On the 25 January 2023, the JCVI published interim advice on the covid-19 vaccination programme for 2023. The JCVI has now provided final advice for a covid-19 vaccination booster programme in spring 2023. HMG has accepted this advice and I am informed that all four parts of the UK intend to follow the JCVI’s advice.
Covid-19 spring booster programme
The JCVI advises that a covid-19 vaccine spring booster dose should be offered to:
adults aged 75 years and over;
residents in a care home for older adults; and
individuals aged five years and over who are immunosuppressed, as defined in tables 3 or 4 in chapter 14a of the UK Health Security Agency’s (UKHSA) Green Book.
NHS England has asked covid-19 vaccination providers in England to begin the main spring 2023 booster campaign vaccinations from 17 April, with the national booking system opening beforehand. Vaccination of residents in older adult care homes will start ahead of this from 3 April. Eligible individuals will be offered the vaccine around six months after their previous dose.
The JCVI has advised the following vaccines may be used in the 2023 spring programme:
Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent;
Moderna bivalent;
Sanofi/GSK monovalent—beta variant;
Novavax monovalent—wild-type variant—only for use when alternative products are not considered clinically suitable.
The vaccine offered will depend on a person’s age and local supply considerations. Children under 12 years of age will be offered a children’s formulation of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
In addition, the JCVI’s interim advice remains that individuals at higher risk of severe covid-19 are expected to be offered a booster vaccine dose in autumn 2023 in preparation for winter 2023 to 2024.
Moving primary course covid-19 vaccine to a targeted offer
Currently the covid-19 vaccine primary course offer—first two doses—is available in the UK to everyone aged five and over. The JCVI’s interim advice in January set out that this offer, should move over the course of 2023 towards a more targeted offer during vaccination campaigns to protect those persons at higher risk of severe covid-19. This would include:
residents in a care home for older adults and staff working in care homes for older adults;
frontline health and social care workers;
all adults aged 50 years and over;
persons aged five to 49 years in a clinical risk group, as set out in chapter 14a of the UKHSA’s Green Book;
persons aged 12 to 49 years who are household contacts of people with immunosuppression;
persons aged 16 to 49 years who are carers, as set out in out in chapter 14a of the UKHSA’s Green Book.
I am now updating the House that the ongoing primary course vaccination offer will be moving to a more targeted offer available during campaign periods only for those at higher risk of severe covid-19 from July. Otherwise healthy five to 49-year-olds who have not come forward for their primary course covid-19 vaccination will no longer be able to access this offer following the close of the 2023 spring booster programme, planned to end 30 June 2023.1 would encourage those who have not taken up the offer to come forward in good time to access it before the offer ends.
Notification of liabilities
I am now updating the House on the liabilities HMG have taken on in relation to further vaccine deployment via this statement and accompanying Departmental Minutes laid in Parliament containing a description of the liability undertaken. The agreement to provide indemnity with deployment of further doses increases the contingent liability of the covid-19 vaccination programme.
On 20 December 2022, the Sanofi/GSK covid-19 vaccine, VidPrevtyn Beta, was authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The JCVI has provided deployment advice on VidPrevtyn Beta as part of its advice on the spring programme.
The agreement to provide an indemnity as part of the contract between HMG and Sanofi/GSK creates a new contingent liability on the covid-19 vaccination programme. Deployment of effective vaccines to targeted groups has been and remains a key part of the Government’s strategy to manage covid-19.
I will update the House in a similar manner as and when other covid-19 vaccines or additional doses of vaccines already in use in the UK are deployed.
[HCWS612]
Independent Review into Maternity and Neonatal Services in East Kent: Government’s Initial Response
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I wish to inform the House of the Government’s initial response to the report of the independent review into the maternity and neonatal services at East Kent University NHS Foundation Trust that was published on the 19 October 2022. NHS England commissioned Dr Bill Kirkup CBE to undertake this review following concerns about the quality and outcomes of care.
I would like to place on the record my gratitude to the families who came forward to contribute to this review, and to express my deepest sympathies for the loss and harm that Dr Kirkup discovered in the maternity and neonatal services at East Kent. I am also grateful for Dr Kirkup and his review team for his report. Taking each of the recommendations in turn:
The Government already has work underway to establish a taskforce with appropriate membership to drive the introduction of valid maternity and neonatal outcome measures capable of differentiating signals among noise to display significant trends and outliers, for mandatory national use.
Those responsible for undergraduate, postgraduate and continuing clinical education will be commissioned to report on how compassionate care can best be embedded into practice and sustained through lifelong learning.
Relevant bodies, including royal colleges, professional regulators and employers, will be commissioned to report on how the oversight and direction of clinicians can be improved, with nationally agreed standards of professional behaviour and appropriate sanctions for non- compliance.
Relevant bodies, including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, will be charged with reporting on how teamworking in maternity and neonatal care can be improved, with particular reference to establishing common purpose, objectives and training from the outset.
Relevant bodies, including Health Education England, royal colleges and employers, will be commissioned to report on the employment and training of junior doctors to improve support, teamworking and development.
The Government will consider in parallel with other relevant inquiries the duties placed on public bodies to share information with families.
Trusts will be required to review their approach to reputation management and to ensuring there is proper representation of maternity care on their boards.
The Government will continue to work with NHSE on its approach to poorly performing trusts and their leadership.
The trust has already made a statement accepting the reality of these findings; acknowledging in full the unnecessary harm that has been caused; and embarking on a restorative process addressing the problems identified, in partnership with families, publicly and with external input.
We continue to work with NHS England and the Care Quality Commission regarding patient safety concerns at the Trust. Further information on how the recommendations are being implemented will be outlined in spring 2023. The Department of Health and Social Care will also closely monitor progress on these recommendations alongside the recommendations of other maternity and neonatal service inquiries to improve standards of care for mothers and babies.
[HCWS606]
Home Office Funding 2022-23
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
The Home Office net cash requirement for the year exceeds that provided by the main estimate 2022-23 and is within that provided by the supplementary estimate to support related resource expenditure. The supplementary estimate has not yet received Royal Assent.
The Contingencies Fund advance is required to meet commitments until the supplementary estimate receives Royal Assent, at which point the Home Office will be able to draw down the cash from the Consolidated Fund in the usual way, to repay the Contingencies Fund advance.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £1,000,000,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Home Office. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £1,000,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS610]
Report of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation on the operation in 2021 of the Terroris
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has prepared a report on the operation of the Terrorism Acts in 2021.
In accordance with section 36(5) of the Terrorism Act 2006, I am today laying this report before the House, and copies will be available in the Vote Office. It will also be published on gov.uk.
I am grateful to Mr Hall for his report. I will carefully consider its contents and the recommendations he makes and will respond formally in due course.
[HCWS609]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, I start with the usual warning: if there is a Division in the Chamber, we will adjourn immediately and resume after 10 minutes.
Financial Services and Markets Bill
Tuesday 7th March 2023
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 View all Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 80-VII Seventh marshalled list for Grand Committee - (3 Mar 2023)
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I think we had got on to Amendment 199. Is that correct?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
Amendment 168 is the lead amendment; the other amendments are grouped with it. People can debate any amendment within the group.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
Amendment 168 is the lead amendment; that is absolutely right. I think we had got on to Amendment 199. Is that correct, Minister? Are you happy with that?
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
Noble Lords can speak to any amendment in the group once the lead amendment has been put, I believe.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
One or two people had talked to Amendment 199 and I was just about to do the same. Is that okay?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
It is in order to speak to any amendments in the group.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I apologise; I am completely confused.
The due diligence system reintroduced for companies under Schedule 17 to the Environment Act is world-leading in its intentions. However, we have to finish the job to end our financing of deforestation. The GRI Taskforce has been unequivocal in its advice that financial actors should conduct deforestation due diligence too for their own sake as well as for everyone else’s. In the meantime, as somebody mentioned last time, Britain’s financial institutions are contributing $16.6 billion to businesses implicated in deforestation.
This is a huge global issue. Experts say that we must end commodity-driven deforestation by 2025 if we are to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade. At present, as a result of those investments, climate-critical tropical forests are shrinking. This is absolutely appalling. The UN’s high-level climate champions have begun to refer to deforestation as the new coal in investors’ portfolios. There should be no investment in companies involved in deforestation. It is quite simple.
The amendment responds powerfully to the GRI Taskforce’s advice. It has significant cross-party backing in the House of Commons. The Government are inclined to go for a weaker policy against the advice of their own expert task force on deforestation. I hope that the Minister will do all she can to persuade her colleagues in the other place to support Amendment 199 before Report. Rishi Sunak has promised that the UK
“will be the world’s first net zero financial centre”.
His support for Amendment 199 is an obvious step on the way. I thank the WWF, Greenpeace, Global Witness and Mighty Earth for their excellent joint briefing. I call on all noble Lords to support Amendment 199.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 168 and 201. I refer to my interests as a trustee of defined benefit and master trust pension schemes.
The loss of financial stability can occur quickly. History shows us that risks that crystallised and caused that instability were often insufficiently captured by regulators and that actions to mitigate their impact were not taken in good time. It would be extraordinary for any Government to believe that financial regulators could deliver the objectives of competitiveness and sustainable growth without embedding in that delivery the finance sector’s response to climate risk.
Climate change brings immense risk, but it is not specifically factored into either the regulatory capital risk requirement for banks or the solvency requirements for insurers. We already see the weaknesses: banks and insurers still retain exposure to fossil fuel investments and a significant number of the largest UK banks do not have interim targets to cut funded emissions. I could quote many other statistics to confirm that weakness.
As the Bank of England stated in the executive summary of the Results of the 2021 Climate Biennial Exploratory Scenario, its assessment is that UK banks and insurers still need to do much more to understand and manage their exposure to climate risks. The Bank admits that there is a lack not only of managing that exposure but of understanding it. That makes Amendment 168 important in calling for a PRA review of capital adequacy and solvency capital requirements, having regard to the full implications of climate change physical, transitional and liability risks and for financial stability.
Failing effectively to factor climate risks into regulatory requirements tolerates the failure of firms that make unwise bets on the continuation of “business as usual”. Inevitably, it necessitates government intervention, socialising of losses and consequences for taxpayers. When a similar amendment was sought previously, the Government argued that the CBES work that I have just referred to would assess the implications of climate change risks for investment, stranded assets and financial stability. However, we have heard from speakers in this debate, including my noble friend Lady Worthington, and read from informed commentators worrying concerns with the work, reinforcing the need for the PRA to review its risk assessment approach and modelling. In a Policy Exchange publication, the former chief economist of ING Group put those concerns succinctly when he concluded that
“central bank scenarios have been based on assumptions and models which ignore or downplay crucial elements of climate risk and critical triggers, tipping points and interdependencies between climate, economy, politics, finance and technology”.
As has just been referred to, the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, promised that the UK would create the world’s first net-zero financial centre. However, London recently lost its position as Europe’s most valuable stock market to Paris. The London market is more heavily exposed to unpredictable sectors such as mining and oils and we now see the issue of listings emerging as a problem.
Achieving a net-zero financial sector requires regulators having the necessary mandate and accountability. The finance sector’s practices, as a major investor in companies and as an insurance underwriter, have a vital role to play in the transition towards zero carbon. In an area with which I am familiar, the closure of private defined benefit pension schemes has been followed by an accelerating trend for trustees to enter buy-out financial agreements with insurance companies, paying premiums in return for individual annuity policies covering members, with assets and liabilities transferring to insurers.
Buy-in is also occurring, such as the record-breaking £6.5 billion buy-in recently by the RSA pension scheme. That market saw a £30 billion transfer in 2022 of pension liability to insurers. It could exceed £40 billion in 2023. There were many billions that preceded 2022 and the trend means that there will be many more in 2024. Auto-enrolment means that billions of pounds of defined contributions are being invested each year. The market is consolidating into fewer master trusts, some set up by vertically integrated finance companies that also manage the assets in those trusts, and individual pensioners. Tomorrow’s pensioners will be much more dependent on insurer stability. That clearly reinforces the need for the PRA review and for raising the bar on the investment duties of asset managers, as Amendment 201 seeks, by requiring the FCA to publish guidance on the consideration by investment managers of the long-term consequences of decisions, the societal and environmental impact of investments, standards of conduct in governance and transparency of reporting.
The UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association reports that it continues to see a common lack of understanding within financial services on the extent to which ESG factors form a core component of investors’ fiduciary duties. The Principles for Responsible Investment Association similarly identified that lack of understanding and recommended further regulator guidance. As a jobbing trustee, for want of a better phrase, there is a part of me that wonders to what extent there is such a lack of understanding, rather than a reluctance to understand, but there is a problem. The investment association found that only 14% of members incorporated ESG across their entire portfolio in 2019, while 44% said that it accounted for less than 25% of their portfolio.
The Government want to see more productive investment by the financial sector. For government to direct how citizens’ private assets are invested would displace fiduciary duties which rest with trustees, providers and asset managers and raise issues of state liability, political expediency trumping best interest and litigation. Amendment 201 could assist regulators, providers and asset managers in considering decisions on productive investment consistent with fiduciary duties and identifying the barriers to aligning these. We can perhaps address some of those barriers on another amendment later in the Bill.
However, the ability of trustees to discharge their ESG and climate risk duties to greatest effect has a clear dependency on how regulators expect asset managers to discharge their duties. We cannot do ours well unless asset managers do theirs well, too. It also depends on central bank scenarios and the regulation of the finance sector’s response to climate risk, because it will influence attitudes and the value of different assets. The whole eco- system needs improvement in both transparency and due diligence. The two amendments that I speak to, on the PRA reviewing its whole approach to modelling, regulating and embedding climate risk, and the contribution that asset managers are required to make to mitigating climate risk, both have merit and are badly needed.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I will address the amendments just addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and others, which are intended to discourage investment in fossil fuels. There are two routes to net zero: one is to phase out demand, which is the route that we have adopted in this country. My noble friend Lord Deben, who is not here today, provides guidance and forecasts to the Government on how to phase out that demand to meet net zero by 2050. That is the sensible way of doing it. The alternative is to try to phase out supply. If fossil fuel producers invest in more production capacity for those fuels than is needed for declining demand, they will lose money. They may even be left with oilfields that have not been fully depleted —it could not happen to a nicer bunch of people.
I am really touched that so many green noble Lords and noble Baronesses are determined to protect the oil industry from losing money. That is not their real intent, of course; that is to discourage investment and reduce it as fast as possible, if need be by reducing the supply of fossil fuels faster than we reduce demand for them. If they achieve that, we will have a shortage of fossil fuels. We will have rising prices with those shortages and will have done to ourselves exactly what Putin has done at the moment. Is that what they want?
Noble Lords pretend on the first argument that they want to save the banks and the industry from being left with stranded assets. As I say, it is touching that they should be so concerned about them, but why do they think they are better at forecasting the future demand and supply balance for fossil fuels than the oil companies and others whose business it is, or others in the City whose business it is to try to work out whether it is worth investing? I used to be an energy analyst in the City; it was my job to try to forecast these things. In some years, I was the most highly rated analyst in the City on these matters, presumably because I was making long-term forecasts and no one could tell that they would prove wrong. But the idea that the PRC knows better than people in the City—
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I find the noble Lord’s contributions really very valuable. But on supply and demand, for him to label us people who just do not want fossil fuels is so incorrect. We need more energy, but it does not have to come from fossil fuels. The fossil fuel industry is supported to an extent.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
It has been supported by Governments, through subsidies, through tax breaks, through decommissioning tax reliefs—any number of routes for support exist. So I say to the noble Lord: please do not try to categorise the noble Baronesses who have spoken on this issue as people who do not like fossil fuels. What we do not want is for fossil fuels to be needlessly supported in the future when they are patently no longer able to support themselves.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness. I do not want to support fossil fuels. If she looked at the tax revenue levied on the production and consumption of fossil fuels, she would see that it is enormous. To describe that as a subsidy or support is very strange. But to the extent that there is anything that is a subsidy, I am with her: let us remove it, but that is not what these amendments do. They simply aim to make it more expensive to invest in fossil fuels. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Castle—whatever it is; bouncy castle—is upset at being described as being against fossil fuels. I would have thought that she would be positively flattered. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, is offended at being told that she is trying to discourage the production of fossil fuels; I thought she was. I am simply saying let us stick to the CCC’s recommendations of phasing out demand and we can leave the supply side to look after itself. We should not pretend that we know better than the industry what is likely to prove excessive or insufficient.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I could say a little about stranded assets; I think we have had this exchange before. If stranded assets transpire—from where I am sitting, I think that is inevitable—what assurance can he give that the cost of those stranded assets will not be socialised?
Lord Lilley (Con)
Clearly, the Government ought to deal with that problem. These amendments do not deal with that problem. If there is a problem, if the noble Baroness thinks that BP or Shell will go bankrupt and be unable to pay for the liabilities it incurred, we should take steps to deal with that situation. I do not think it is likely but if she thinks it is that serious, she should table amendments that would deal with that, but these amendments do not. They simply make it more expensive to invest in things which we are going to continue consuming, according to the Government’s own plans and the CCC’s own projects and recommendations, in considerable quantities until 2050.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
I will interject on behalf on the amendment I drafted, as the noble Lord has completely mischaracterised what we are attempting to do here and has narrowed the debate into a very narrow conversation about oil and gas assets. We are talking here about climatic risk across the whole economy. It is not just oil and gas operators; it is anybody who has any money wound up in any of the sectors that will be affected by the physical risk, the risk of transition and the societal risk when we finally realise that science does not negotiate with oil and gas companies, financial regulators or anybody who pretends to be able to predict the future. We have poor modelling, we have terrible risk assessments, and the PRA and the Government need to issue better guidance so that we can understand the risks we are facing. Let us not reduce this to a narrow discussion about oil and gas interests.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I read the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness. Proposed new subsection (1) refers to
“group undertakings engaged in existing fossil fuel exploitation and production … group undertakings carrying out new fossil fuel exploration, exploitation and production”.
If this is not about fossil fuel exploration, that is not very clear from her amendment. I am dealing specifically—
Lord Lilley (Con)
Hang on, I must have the right to reply to the previous intervention before I take the next. I am not dealing with things other than fossil fuels. I am talking just about fossil fuels. It seems to me that the noble Baroness’s amendment is about fossil fuels, in large measure. My arguments have not been responded to because they are fundamentally logical. They are the whole basis of government and CCC policy. But I give way to the noble Baroness now.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
The amendment lists certain sectors which are likely to be most affected. It does not in any way say it is limited to those sectors, and I think it is egregious to assume that this is a narrow amendment when it is, in fact, a very broad amendment.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My remarks are narrow. The noble Baroness’s amendment may be broad. Can we agree on that and deal with the aspect of fossil fuel investment?
Lord Lilley (Con)
We ought to allow the industry to invest as long as we are phasing out demand. If it invests too much, it is its problem. If it invests too little, it is our problem.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I support many of the amendments in this group. My Amendment 241A is in this group. I have added my name to Amendments 201 and 237, which require FCA guidance about long-term returns for occupational pension investors. I think that is very important when considering climate change and is very relevant to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Lilley. I have also added my name to Amendment 235 as I think it is equally important for institutional investors in the UK to be equipped with some green taxonomy so that we have some standards by which we can measure the impact of climate investment.
As regards the issues raised by my noble friend, particularly, perhaps, in relation to Amendment 168, when I read that amendment it seems to me to be calling for a review. It calls for the FCA to review and perhaps guide pension schemes and insurance companies, which have very long-term liabilities, on assessing the long-term risks of investing in assets such as fossil fuels. There is a widespread opinion suggesting that over the long term, whether that is 20 years or 30 years —those timescales are relevant for Solvency II and the annuity books of insurers, for example—there is a significant danger in relying on the continued thriving of those large energy companies.
It makes sense. We have been taken by surprise too many times in the financial world by supposedly very small long-term risks which materialise in a cliff-edge event that people had not been prepared for. Whether or not the review concludes that there should be any change, it is appropriate that this review should be carried out, so I support the amendment, but I understand the points made by my noble friend. Perhaps, on a shorter-term timescale, given the need for fossil fuels and the work that is being done by those large companies to try to transition to more green energy, that is an issue that needs to be carefully weighed up by any investor who is considering the potential returns from their investment.
In the interests of time, I will now speak to my Amendment 241A. I hope that my noble friend will be interested in this amendment and, indeed, that other Members of the Committee might consider that there is merit in this proposal. It is a relatively modest reform. It would be deregulatory. It supports the transition to net zero and nature preservation and it would encourage innovation. I hope it would garner more of our domestic institutional asset base to be used for the kinds of investments that all of us who are concerned about the long-term impact of human activity on the climate and nature would want to see happen.
I thank the Public Bill Office and Susannah Street, as well as Peers for the Planet, for their assistance in trying to ensure that the amendment is in scope of the Bill, which was quite a feat. It is a probing amendment; I am not wedded to the wording, but the principle of the proposal would make it easier for funded occupational pension schemes to join together to establish fund managers under a lighter-touch regime that already exists in order to invest in and support climate and nature protection. We all know that there is a growing need to find the funding to rebuild, repurpose or have new infrastructure for low-carbon and nature-friendly projects. Indeed, nature’s impact on and interaction with climate change and net zero is increasingly recognised. These issues feature in the other amendments I have attached my name to, so I hope that the scientific and political consensus that we need urgent action might help my noble friend and the Committee recognise that this could be a win-win for pension funds to get better long-term returns, for pensions to be perhaps better than they otherwise might be, and for the economy.
Much of the investment needed to reach net zero will be in very large long-term projects. It is not always easy to find the money. Normally, perhaps, with a Government who were in a much stronger fiscal position than most western Governments now are, we might look to the majority of this being funded by government, but that is less likely at the moment. Yet we have in this country this enormous pool of long-term assets that is currently being encouraged to invest in assets with a much lower expected return or so-called safe assets—gilts and corporate bonds, for example—shunning long-term growth with equities and projects such as the one I have in mind for this type of approach. Only 100 schemes or so have more than £5 billion worth of assets. Even with the kind of forecast consolidation, it is unlikely that we will have very many of the £5 billion-type scale that is normally suggested to be required to put forward a prudent, risk-diversified portfolio of such infrastructure and other protective investments.
My amendment would facilitate asset pooling for the smaller pension funds as well, so they can all join together in FCA-authorised investment managers specifically for pools of pension assets to benefit from and contribute to the benefits for green growth and sustainable long-term returns for the specific purposes set out in proposed new subsection (3) of my amendment. The Local Government Pension Scheme is already starting to do this, but private schemes would have to use commercial fund managers, which often either deters such investing or incurs much higher costs, whereas big schemes such as USS and NEST are already looking to invest or have the expertise to do so, but they are not joined with the smaller schemes.
I hope that the currently existing lighter-touch regime that the FCA offers in its occupational pension scheme firm rules, which currently apply only to fund management firms that are wholly owned by one pension fund, could be applied to a combination of pension funds that are investing for their own purposes in the various schemes that belong to it. It is not commercially available or available to other members of the public, but it is for long-term pension investing.
I would be grateful if my noble friend considered this modest reform, or, if she feels that there is some flaw in the wording of the amendment that could be changed and still facilitate this, I would be happy if she, or indeed any other noble Lords, wanted to meet to discuss it. As I said, it is deregulatory, it supports the aims of net zero and nature preservation, it would encourage innovation and it should provide better diversification and therefore long-term risk reduction for a number of occupational pension schemes which otherwise could not take advantage of it.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I support the objectives behind all these amendments. I was going to direct my remarks specifically to Amendment 237, but I want to make a narrow but important point of qualification. I support the principle, but I cannot stop myself responding to the discussion we had earlier, led by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, about fossil fuels. The important point about fossil fuels is that there are massive externalities—external costs—which are not caught in the market, and, unless we do something now, our children, and their children, will pay the price. It is not just a question of moving the market now; we need to stop using this stuff, which is poisoning the planet.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I was not disputing that; I was saying that we accept that we have to find the route to net zero, but the question is: should we phase out demand for fossil fuels, as the noble Lord’s last sentence indicated, or should we phase out supply? Which does he prefer?
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Both. I am not really being given that choice but, as I said, it was just a narrow point.
My question on Amendment 237 is: would you take investment advice or guidance from the Secretary of State? Is the Secretary of State even authorised to provide investment guidance or advice? I am troubled by the involvement of the Secretary of State, and I hope that we could perhaps consider a different wording if we wish to raise this on Report. If the Government want something to happen—net zero—as a matter of public policy, they have to accept the risk themselves and not pass it on to private individuals. I am talking about pension schemes, and the underlying point is that the money in a person’s pension scheme is their money, provided to them to be used in accordance with their wishes to provide them with a retirement income. Part of that retirement income depends on solving climate change—that is clear. I do not doubt the importance of taking these issues into account; I simply question the relevance and role of the Secretary of State in that process.
Over many years’ involvement with pension funds, I have seen that, when people see the massive amount of money involved, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, they see that the economic power is there, but it is there on behalf of the members’ interests and not, in principle, as a means of implementing government policies—however worthy. They might be in alignment, but the leading factor should be the members’ interests.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. Since the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, appeared to be directing a question at me about whether I oppose fossil fuels, I will take a moment to answer that. Do I think that pulling up carbon which has been stored in the ground over hundreds of millions of years, which was a crucial part of delivering the Holocene that gave us 10,000 years of incredibly stable climate in historic terms, and then pumping it into the atmosphere needs to be stopped with great speed? Yes, I oppose pumping out that stored carbon.
More than that, the fact is that extracting, transporting, burning and getting rid of the waste products from that fossil fuel causes huge damage to the health of people on this planet. One in five premature deaths that occur on this planet is as a result of burning fossil fuels—that is based on a study in environmental health in 2021. So do I want to do something urgently to make this a healthier planet for people? Yes, I do. However, that is not what any of these amendments are about. These amendments are to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, and all of them are about trying to stop the crashing of the financial markets, which are also crucial to our security and health in different kinds of ways. That is what all these amendments address.
It is really interesting that we have here a set of amendments which we might, collectively, for the purposes of Committee look at how we can hone and shape—I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. But what we have in Amendment 168 are directions to the PRA to review capital adequacy requirements. That is about the security of firms. In Amendment 201, we have directions to the FCA to direct personal pension providers. Picking up on that point, I note the figures from the Pensions Regulator’s most recent survey of defined contribution schemes, which found that more than 80% did not allocate any time or resources to managing climate risk.
Then in Amendment 233, we have sustainable disclosure requirements, so that companies would report to investors what risks they are taking with their money by not dealing with all the sustainability risks which relate to the fact that we are exceeding planetary boundaries—not just on climate but on biodiversity, the loss of ecosystems and novel entities, and on phosphate geochemical flows. All these things are taking risks with people’s money, which is what we are talking about. Amendment 233 might indeed guide us in the direction of each major company having to have a chief environmental officer, who should be of equal status and importance to a chief financial officer because it is about ensuring the sustainability of the company, as well as the sustainability of this earth. Going on to Amendment 235, we are directing the Treasury to provide government guidance on how we achieve all of this.
That is an overview but I want to pick up one specific point. I would have signed Amendment 119, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and others in a full cross-party group, had there been space. When people think about forest risk commodities, they often start by thinking, naturally enough, about timber but, if we look at some statistics, palm, beef and soya production collectively amount to 36% of global deforestation. When Orbitas, an investment body, surveyed 24 capital providers in 2020, all of which had high levels of tropical commodity exposure, not one had screened their loan books and/or investments for agricultural transition risks. I want to major on that point while we debate this today, because if we look at Indonesia, 76% of unplanted forest concessions and 15% of existing palm oil assets could be at risk—that is, financial risk—should Indonesia adopt what is seen as its essential plans to meet its Paris climate commitments.
I said that we need to look at all aspects of planetary boundaries being exceeded. We also must include water risk. Fresh water supplies rely heavy on fossil water aquifers—in the American high plains, in Mexico, in eastern Europe, in Egypt, in Arabia, Iran and China. All agricultural production of food—the big sectors globally and financially—is utterly dependent on fresh water supplies, which are not being replenished. That is a huge financial risk as well as a risk to when any of us can eat in the future, at a basic level.
Finally, I focus on Amendment 168, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Worthington, Lady Drake and Lady Sheehan. I would like to work with them ahead of Report because, as others have highlighted, this focuses particularly, though not exclusively, as the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said, on fossil fuel exploration, exploitation and production. We must broaden this out to look at the agricultural sector, because it is an area of enormous financial risk. I draw on the work of the investment group FAIRR, which looks at the extremely high financial risks. The majority of the largest protein producer companies are at high risk for greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, water and waste. Over 60% of them saw soya feed from areas at high risk of deforestation and have still not set deforestation targets. Fewer than one in five meat, egg and dairy firms is adequately managing the pollution of waterways from manure. Just ask the people of Herefordshire about that if you want to know more.
FAIRR finds that the volume of waste produced by the 70 billion animals processed each year is equivalent to the volume of waste produced by twice the entire human population on this planet. Only 18% of global meat and dairy producers track even partial methane emissions, even though annual methane emissions from global capital and livestock make up 44% of anthropogenic methane emissions.
We are talking about the future of our life on this planet. We are talking about a liveable planet. That is inescapable. However, today we are talking about ensuring that we do not see the next financial crash. Let us remember the last financial crash, when the cash machines were within hours of stopping working. We must do something to stop the next financial crash from being at the point where the size of the carbon bubble, the level of stranded assets across a range of sectors—fossil fuels, animal agriculture and other areas—is such that it suddenly hits the markets. The markets are not counting this now. They must count this in if we are to have a sustainable financial sector.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I will not repeat what my noble friend Lord Lilley said earlier, other than to say, speaking for myself and, I suspect, for my colleagues, that we do believe in net zero. That is a target. It is not an immediate diktat, but it is a target that I guess almost everybody in Parliament has accepted.
My noble friend is right that key in the judgment of those of us who have worked in the commercial sector, as I did before I came to Parliament nearly 50 years ago, is that we live in a free society. The answer to this problem is to phase out demand. It is easier to phase out demand than to phase out supply. If they both have the same effect in the end, you might as well take the easier and cheaper route, which does not involve subsidy to remove activity. We live in a free society and unless it is absolutely vital, it should be based not on government diktat, but on competition.
I will also comment on Amendment 199 on forestry. I had better declare an interest; it is hardly a forest, but there are 40 acres of woodland adjacent to my property. It is a wonderful hobby for me to have become someone who now understands woodland, at least; I could not claim that it is a forest.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, this is a cross-party group on the environment. It has no amendments led by Labour, but I have signed Amendment 199 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on outlawing someone carrying out a regulated commercial activity that directly or indirectly supports deforestation risk commodities, unless relevant local laws are complied with.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and thank Global Witness for its support on this amendment. My party is committed to securing the highest sustained growth in the G7. That means modernising our economy and financial regulation. We cannot deforest our way to sustainable growth nor a robust financial system.
Leaders across the City of London, along with BNP Paribas, Legal & General, Unilever and Tesco, are supportive of the measure proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. Sir Ian Cheshire, former chair of Barclays and head of the Global Resource Initiative task force, has written to the Minister to remind the Government that the task force concluded its work in May 2022 by reiterating the need for new legislation to provide due diligence obligations for financial institutions equivalent to those that will be in place on supply chain companies under the Environment Act 2021. The Minister has previously argued that enhanced risk reporting eliminates the need for this amendment but the GRI task force has already rejected that argument. Sir Ian’s letter put this issue to bed when he wrote that risk reporting mechanisms, such as the task force on nature-related financial disclosure and voluntary net-zero pledges, are insufficient to prevent deforestation financing.
This expert backing and the desire of the British public to eliminate the scourge of deforestation are key reasons why this amendment has such considerable cross-party support. It would allow us to be global rule-makers, not rule-takers, when it comes to our financial system; I urge the Minister to take it seriously. Beyond Amendment 199, this group contains a lot of common-sense amendments that highlight the expertise of this Committee.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this chance to continue this Committee’s important debate on amendments concerning green finance. As I stated in a previous Committee session, the Government are committed to fostering sustainable finance in the UK and will shortly publish an updated green finance strategy to that effect.
I will speak first to Amendment 168 from the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. It is of course correct that all models have their limitations in depicting the real world but the Bank of England’s models have considered the views of experts in the field; they therefore do not need to be directed to do so. The scenarios used in the climate biennial exploratory scenario, or CBES, were formed by the Network for Greening the Financial System, an international network of central banks in which the Bank of England plays a prominent role. The scenarios have been produced in partnership with leading climate scientists, leveraging climate-economy models that have been widely used to inform policymakers—not to mention being used by and continuing to be used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These scenarios are updated continually by the Network for Greening the Financial System, which also ran a public survey welcoming feedback on its most recent iteration of climate scenarios.
It is also not the case that CBES is the PRA’s only tool to manage climate risk. It is actively using its position as a supervisor to ensure that firms are not materially undercapitalised for climate risks, setting out its expectations in its supervisory statement published in 2019. Furthermore, the PRA is an active member of two of the leading international standard setters: the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and the International Association of Insurance Supervisors. The Bank is actively participating in both forums to ensure that the regulatory frameworks for the banking and insurance sectors address potential gaps in the management of climate-related financial risks. This work will flow through to our domestic framework and at the same time ensure international co-operation on what is fundamentally a global issue.
I now turn to Amendment 199 in the name of my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, which is supported by other noble Lords in this Committee. The Government agree that the financing of illegal deforestation is a serious global issue that must be tackled. However, this amendment would involve implementing a new and untested regulation that would impose a broad supply chain rule on all regulated financial services firms. It would currently be very difficult, time-consuming and expensive for UK financial services firms to ascertain whether firms or products that they invest in are exposed to forest risk commodities in compliance with local laws.
In introducing this amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, referred to the provisions in the Environment Act 2021. These provisions will apply to the supply chains of large UK corporates. However, UK-based banks and fund managers engage in lending and investment activities with companies in jurisdictions across the globe, not just commercial activity in the UK. There are currently no consistent, equivalent disclosure requirements to those that will be set out under the Environment Act 2021 in jurisdictions across the globe. Given that, capturing the activity of all of their customers and supply chains would not be as simple as adding an extra stage of disclosure to the regime set out in the Environment Act 2021, as had been suggested. However, I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to addressing this issue and will work with the financial services sector and those with expertise in tackling deforestation to consider how we can make further progress.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
Before the Minister moves on to another amendment, I put a question to her on Amendment 199 on deforestation. I hope she is coming to answer it.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
The question was about the regulations under Section 17 of the Environment Act 2021 that are supposed to be forthcoming. I asked the Minister when she thought they might be ready.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I will have to get back to the Committee on that point. I had picked up the noble Baroness’s other point, which was also referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on the letter from Sir Ian Cheshire on this issue. I looked closely at his report and the recommendations in it. I am happy to place a copy of that letter and my response to it in the Library so that all noble Lords have access to them.
I was going to add something about the importance, in seeking to address this issue, of co-ordinating action internationally. This is necessary to reduce the financing of illegal deforestation and not simply drive it into other jurisdictions.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, referenced the work by Sir Ian Cheshire’s task force and its references to the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, the TNFD. The Government accept that that will not solve this problem on its own but it is important to recognise it as an important building block in creating an international solution. As I have pointed out, other jurisdictions do not have disclosure regimes. The TNFD is an attempt to create a global standard on nature-related disclosures that could be an ingredient in making progress in this area. The UK is the largest financial backer of the TNFD. We support its work to develop a global framework for reporting on nature-related impacts, dependencies and risks, within which deforestation is being considered. Once the task force launches its final recommendations in September 2023, the Government will consider bringing these standards into the UK disclosure framework.
Finally, on deforestation, in response to Sir Ian and the noble Lords who raised it today, as I set out, we are looking at what we can do further in this area. If noble Lords would like to meet to take those discussions forward, I would be very happy to do that.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
Before the Minister moves on, could I reiterate the strength of feeling across the Committee on deforestation? It is not just about the 12% of global carbon dioxide that is released by burning and cutting down forests; it is also about the destruction of the carbon sink. It is a double whammy. This is an issue that we can and must solve. We have a report by the Government’s own appointed head of the GRI, Sir Ian Cheshire, who clearly lays out how we move forward on this. I wonder why the Government will not accept the findings of their own reports.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I say to the noble Baroness that I absolutely agree. I appreciate the point that the issues concerning deforestation are about not just nature and biodiversity but our ability to tackle climate change. That is why we are such strong supporters of the TNFD’s work, for example. She mentioned Sir Ian Cheshire’s report. I said to the Committee that I have read that report and looked at it very carefully. I do not think that we are in disagreement in wanting to find solutions to this problem. Sir Ian’s report also sets out that work needs to be done to ensure that the solutions that we identify are effective. For example, he refers to ongoing work in other jurisdictions such as the EU and the US on disclosures that would be building blocks towards making the progress that we all want to make. The Government do want to make further progress on this issue and I understand the strength of feeling, so I commit to this Committee to take those discussions further and see where we can build consensus on it.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I thank the Minister. On behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, I accept the meeting. I know that he cannot be with us today, sadly. The final point that I leave with the Minister is that Sir Ian Cheshire was very clear in his letter about why he thought the UK should be acting. It is because, as a financial sector, we really matter. We may have 1% of the global emissions footprint but, in terms of the deforestation footprint and the money that passes through London, it is substantial.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Government understand and agree with those points. That is why we are also seeking to find a way forward on this work and have driven considerable work at a global level to try to tackle deforestation. I hope noble Lords can take some heart from our commitment on that.
On Amendment 232, also from the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, my noble friend Lord Naseby will be pleased to hear that NS&I’s retail green savings bonds, which I think have been available for a couple of years, are integral to the continued successful delivery of our green finance programme. We clearly have more work to do in promoting them, so the NS&I will continue to promote them and encourage retail investors to help finance the fight against climate change and other environmental challenges.
The Government committed to publishing a biennial impact report by September 2023, which will detail the environmental impacts and social co-benefits of the green financing programme’s spending. This will include available reporting on greenhouse gas emission reductions of projects financed by the green savings bonds and green gilts. The upcoming impact report will complement the programme’s first allocation report, published in September 2022. These annual allocation reports detail how funds raised from sales of green gilts and green savings bonds contribute to different green priorities such as clean transport and renewable energy.
Amendment 232 proposes publishing an assessment of the scope for future green financing. Decisions on future green financing ambitions are based on eligible green spending commitments and will be taken each financial year as part of wider decisions for the Treasury’s budget. Financing decisions are also influenced by gilt and retail savings market conditions and consultations with investors. Reporting on the future scope of green financing in advance, rather than at the beginning of each financial year, could create the risk that future spending requirements and conditions in the gilt and retail savings market are disregarded. That would make the successful delivery of the green financing programme more challenging.
I turn to Amendments 233, 235 and 236 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Hayman, which concern sustainability disclosure requirements, green taxonomy and transition plans. Sustainability disclosure requirements—SDR—are designed to provide an effective and co-ordinated reporting framework for sustainability information. This is already being taken forward at pace. The FCA recently consulted on new sustainability-related disclosure requirements for all regulated firms and more detailed rules for asset managers and asset owners.
The Government’s 2021 road map made it clear that disclosure of transition plans will be a part of SDR. The Government launched the independent Transition Plan Taskforce in April 2022 to develop a gold standard for transition plans. The task force has since made huge progress, having just consulted on its recommendations, framework and guidance, with the final framework and guidance to be published later this year, alongside additional sectoral guidance.
The FCA has already implemented the guidance from the Taskforce on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures for transition plans for asset managers and asset owners, on a “comply or explain” basis. It is continuing to work closely with the Transition Plan Taskforce to develop and implement its recommendations.
As I reaffirmed to noble Lords in a previous debate, the Government are committed to implementing a green taxonomy as part of their sustainable finance agenda and, as I set out in my Written Ministerial Statement to the House on 14 December 2022, the Government will provide an update as part of the green finance strategy. We are clear that the value of a taxonomy rests on its credibility as a practical and useful tool for investors, companies, consumers and regulators in supporting access to sustainable finance.
Noble Lords have only to look at the implementation challenges the EU is facing, including on data availability and reporting, coherence with regulatory frameworks, and international interoperability, to see that this is a complex exercise. We have been clear in the UK that, with the support of our Green Technical Advisory Group and with public consultation, we will take the time to get the taxonomy right to ensure that it is usable and effective.
On Amendments 201 and 237, the Government and regulators are taking steps to improve the UK’s regulatory framework to support more effective stewardship. We have already discussed in Committee the Financial Reporting Council’s world-leading Stewardship Code 2020. This asks trustees and managers to disclose how they have considered environmental and social factors, including climate change, in their investments. The Department for Work and Pensions’ recent stewardship guidance for pension scheme trustees came into effect last October.
In addition to these existing initiatives, the DWP, along with the FCA, the Pensions Regulator and the Financial Reporting Council, has already committed to a review later this year of the regulatory framework for effective investment stewardship, to ensure that it is consistent across market participants and financial products. I recognise that this is a complex issue and recognise the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, about the specific framing of the amendments. This is an issue that would warrant further discussion before Report.
On Amendment 241A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Altmann, UK pensions have been at the forefront of tackling climate risk and will undoubtedly continue to play a crucial role. The Government are working hard to drive consolidation among pension schemes so that they deliver increased scale, better value for money and improved access to investments such as green infrastructure. As part of this drive, the DWP recently published a consultation on a value for money framework for defined contribution pension schemes. Furthermore, the pooling of Local Government Pension Scheme assets, from the 86 funds into eight asset pools, has already led to £380 million in net savings to March 2022; these are projected to exceed £1 billion by March 2025.
We are also working hard to lower the barriers for individual pension schemes to invest in green. The DWP is reforming the treatment of performance-based management fees to enable individual pension schemes to invest more easily in assets such as green infrastructure.
Finally, when it comes to the noble Baroness’s amendment, we are aligned in wanting to see more of this pool of capital able to be directed in the way we have discussed in this Committee. It is important that we lower barriers to such projects and solutions. We do not see the benefit in creating a distinct, lighter-touch regulatory regime to support pooled investments in green projects. There may be risks in reducing regulatory oversight in this way.
The UK’s world-leading regulatory standards are important in providing market participants with the confidence to invest and we should be cautious about changes that could undermine that confidence. I say to my noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Drake, that we want to think about how we can make progress in this area. While the specific amendments suggested might not be the right way, we should continue to put our thinking caps on when it comes to how we can guide progress in this area.
With that, I hope that, for now, the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, is able to withdraw her amendment and that other noble Lords will not press their amendments when they are reached.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s reply to this varied group of amendments covering a range of issues that fundamentally speak to the need for the financial sector to take a more serious look at how it can help prevent the exacerbation of environmental challenges, including climate change, and invest in solutions at scale.
I was encouraged to hear that the Government are about to produce their green finance strategy. I wonder whether it might have been a good idea to have done that before the Bill, as then we might have had—
Baroness Penn (Con)
We produced our green finance strategy in 2019 and we provided a green financing road map in 2021. I very much hope that before we reach the end of the Bill noble Lords will have sight of the refreshed green finance strategy.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
That is great, but my point still stands. It would have been good to have had the refresh before the legislation so that we could have incorporated any findings into the Bill.
On my amendment on the assessment of risk in relation to capital requirements, it is not the case that everything is fine in the world of climate modelling. It really is not. If you spend time with climate scientists who are empirical scientists out in the field witnessing the impact of climate on the natural world, they will tell you that the models are not in line with what they are witnessing. That tells you that we have not got a handle on the speed and pace of change in the physical world thanks to decades of unmitigated emissions of greenhouse gases and the never-ceasing increase in concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Naseby, may well say that it is fine and that we are just going to look at demand. We have been doing that for about 30 years. It has not made a jot of difference. The reason for that is that we have an economic system based on an incumbent power that is very adept at keeping demand for its product healthy and at finding new sources of demand for its product, so we absolutely need to cut with both sides of the scissors. We need constraints on demand and constraints on supply; otherwise, we will carry on with this merry dance and the emissions in the atmosphere, which are what matters, will continue to rise.
I believe that the finance sector is not the place to solve this. We need political will across all member states to pass the legislation necessary to drive capital into solutions and to stave off the continued licensing of extraction. That will take time, but it needs to be done.
In the meantime, if we walk into believing that the finance sector has got this—“Don’t worry; the models are all fine”—we will be making a grave error. These models are not sufficient; they do not take a whole host of measures into account. The noble Lord, Lord Stern, is not here, but he is an expert in these matters and he will tell you how flawed these models are. How can they be sufficient when many of them conclude that a global increase of around 3 degrees will take roughly 5%, 10% or 15% from GDP? That is ludicrous. Do not forget that an average global increase of 3 degrees means warming at the poles at three times that rate and hugely different regional impacts. That is not a safe place to be.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
“(1A) When exercising its functions under this Part, the FCA may issue a direction to a designated person, for the purpose of establishing a banking hub.(1B) A designated person must comply with a direction under subsection (1A).(1C) A “banking hub” is a facility which—(a) provides cash access and other basic banking services,(b) is facilitated jointly by multiple providers of such services,(c) contains private consultation spaces for users of cash access services, and(d) is established for the purpose of ensuring reasonable provision of cash access services where there would otherwise be a local deficiency of such provision.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require designated persons to comply with direction given by the FCA for the purposes of establishing banking hubs.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate and we now come to a very important group of amendments regarding access to cash and other physical banking services. Noble Lords may recall that this issue attracted a lot of interest at Second Reading and, in my view, is fundamental to financial inclusion. I remind noble Lords of my interests in the register.
I am speaking to Amendments 176 to 178 in my name. I also put my name to Amendments 180 to 184 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I very much look forward to hearing him speak. In addition, I am sympathetic to nearly all the other amendments in this group, which have similar aims.
My amendments are interconnected and cover face-to-face services, which the Bill does not specifically cover. Amendment 176 would require designated parties to comply with a direction given by the FCA to establish banking hubs. In short, my amendment provides, first, a high-level definition of a banking hub and, secondly, a power for the FCA to require one to be established. Without these, there is a real risk of inadequate face-to-face services being provided under the label of “banking hub”, which is not yet defined, or of no services being provided at all, despite all the warm words and promises.
I have long been a supporter of community banking hubs, as high street bank branches are disappearing at an alarming rate. To put this in context, there are currently some 5,000 branches in the country. By comparison, there were some 20,000 branches 30 years ago. Indeed, since the Bill entered Parliament on 20 July 2022, there have been 390 bank branch closures. Some estimates suggest that as many as 4,000 of the branches which still exist could close in the coming years, leaving an unrecognisable banking landscape about which customers have had no choice and no voice. It has just disintegrated before their very eyes.
Looking ahead, there could be as many as 2,000 shared banking facilities, generally referred to as community banking hubs. The importance and benefits of banking hubs, based on a full-service model—which my amendment sets out—include, first, allowing people who need or wish to speak to someone or to access physical banking services to do so. This may include people who need help and advice on complicated matters, such as loans and mortgages, or on issues such as powers of attorney, probate and third-party signature, when a family member becomes incapacitated or passes away. At moments of great emotional stress—I speak from personal experience here—people need a real human being to talk to and to navigate them through unfamiliar territory. They do not want to do this over the phone, online or in a distant town.
Secondly, for many people banking hubs could be a lifeline. We know that 5 million people still rely on cash, particularly to budget week to week. There is also a big overlap between those 5 million and the millions who are digitally excluded, deprived or otherwise vulnerable. We should not restrict the ambition of the Bill just to withdrawing cash.
Thirdly, and equally importantly, many shops are suffering. It is a challenging time on the high street. Banking hubs have been shown to improve footfall and make it easier for businesses to bank locally. Early evidence suggests that they have been welcomed in the locations where they have been installed and piloted. There is also early evidence of regeneration of the high street and of the service to individual customers. For example, the Financial Times reported that in Rochford, a local hairdresser can now stay open longer because it can bank its cash in its own town rather than having to travel. Also, Cambuslang has reported increased footfall at both the banking hub and the post office. Looking to the future, as we must, we should be using a national network of shared banking hubs to work with communities to help all our citizens to prepare to use digital services.
While there is clear potential for a major new national network of banking hubs, progress to date has been, I am sorry to say, glacially slow. We currently have a grand total of four, despite LINK, the UK’s largest cash machine network, having recommended 38 locations to receive a banking hub. There are two problems standing in the way, which this amendment addresses.
First, at present the legislation has nothing in it saying what a banking hub is. My amendment provides a broad definition that includes access, which is very important, but goes wider. Why is this important? Well, what I am calling a full-service banking hub would have a dedicated banker from your bank to offer support and advice as well as the full range of basic transactional services. There have been instances where banks have said that they are providing a banking hub when, in effect, it is a chair at the back of a church hall.
One of the big four high street banks, whose blushes I will spare—though I do not know why—set up a pop-up community service after the branch had closed. In reality, the service was advertised by a chalkboard and some flyers. It was a member of staff with a desk, a laptop and nothing else, in a small room at the back of a community centre. The banking rep could not do anything with cash, there were no cheque or printing services, and the rep could help only with very basic queries, not with actual transactions. In my book, that simply is not a banking hub.
We are told that we can expect a policy statement from the Treasury, which Amendment 181 calls for, among other things, but what guarantees do we have that it will actually provide the services that communities need? Could I ask the Minister when that policy statement will be published, what it will cover and whether we will have an opportunity to scrutinise it before the legislation reaches the statute book? I have given her notice of that question.
Secondly, given the very slow progress to date on the rollout of banking hubs, it is important for the FCA to be able to require delivery from the designated body. Delivery is a problem; as I said, of the 38 banking hubs recommended, we have only four so far. Yes, the chain of those involved in delivery is complex, with many suppliers and banks involved, as well as the Post Office, but the FCA needs to set out a clear target for rollout from the designated co-ordinating body, because without this requirement there will be endless arguments about who is responsible for what will happen, time will drag on and many communities will be left without a service.
Briefly, Amendment 177, which complements Amendment 176, relates to access to other banking activities often associated with a current account that the FCA considers to be significant. I believe that the legislation is too narrow as currently framed, as it covers only cash and would allow this to be delivered through fully automated services without real-life people present. That is not in line with the industry’s findings from the successful Rochford and Cambuslang pilot schemes that I have already talked about.
I readily acknowledge that the Bill is helpful in providing a framework to protect basic access to cash services so that the high street will still have ATMs and deposit services, which millions of people and shops rely on. However, consumers withdrawing and paying in cash also need other basic services delivered face to face. I have already talked about this, why they need it, the complexity, et cetera. If you do not have digital skills, access to broadband or appropriate devices, you often cannot use online services and increasingly face being cut off from basic financial services. The FCA must be given the powers to oversee this issue.
The amendment would give the FCA the authority to take other essential face-to-face transactions into account when it supervises banks. I am sure that none of us in this Room wants people who need face-to-face support to be left behind by an unambitious Bill. Indeed, the Bill is an ideal opportunity to protect those face-to-face services as long as they are needed, supporting millions of consumers, including the elderly and vulnerable groups, such as those with mental health problems, physical disabilities or long-term health conditions. To be absolutely clear, I am not stuck in the past. I am talking not about a bank branch on every corner but rather about protecting the core services we expect from our financial services and which many people would struggle to function without.
Amendment 178 relates to the closure of cash access services and preventing gaps in services—or banking deserts as they have been called. I have already talked about shared banking facilities and the benefits they bring to individuals and small businesses but, and this is critical, when the last bank branch announces that it is going to close, a gap rapidly opens up and leaves people simply cut adrift from vital financial and banking services. Although the existing voluntary arrangements are an improvement on what came before, they are simply not allowing for replacement services to be put in place anything like quickly enough.
The truth is that delivery is not fast enough because the incentive, frankly, is not there. In my view, the current voluntary arrangements lack teeth. I know there are some valid reasons why it is quite tricky. After all, it is a new network of services and it takes time to get these things right, particularly in relation to staffing and premises, but this is simply not acceptable for those communities where a service is recommended but not delivered. We should not accept a gap in service and nor should the FCA. The solution is simple, and this amendment would achieve it. It would give the FCA the explicit power to stop branches closing until the alternatives are in place, thereby protecting consumers, businesses and the high street.
Finally, on Amendments 180 to 182 and 184, I will simply underline the critical importance of free-to-use cash access services being in the Bill. In September 2022, there were nearly 13,000 fewer free-to-use ATMs in the UK than there were in August 2018—a decrease of nearly 25%. In contrast, there has been a much smaller decline in the number of pay-to-use ATMs. People living in the most deprived areas find it hard to access cash without incurring charges; to compound this, those on lower incomes understandably often withdraw smaller amounts of money more frequently and are disproportionately affected by flat fees, which are often in the region of £1 to £2 per withdrawal.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in day seven of Committee on the Bill. I again declare my financial services interests as set out in the register. I agree with almost all of the amendments in this group. Indeed, I have put my name to Amendment 184, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I will not say anything more about that; I will leave him to introduce it far more eloquently than I could.
However, I will speak to Amendments 186, 187, 189 and 239 in my name. I wish to talk about the accessibility of financial services and products, as well as access to them. Sometimes those two things are the same; sometimes they are not. I hope that I can bring that point to life with these amendments. In essence, what we are talking about here is a Bill that sets out some very good principles on access to cash. Cash still matters; it matters materially to millions. However, that is only one side of the coin. Without looking at the acceptance of cash, we might as well say, “What currency has cash if there’s no place to spend it?”, hence the need to look at access to and acceptance of cash if we are really to take the opportunity that this Bill presents us with.
Moving on, my Amendment 186 is about the need for “Accessibility of financial services and financial products”. It is what anybody should be able to rely on. Probably the best way to explain the intent of this amendment is through an example. For years, card payment machines were very accessible. They had raised numbers and a dot in the middle of the “5” key so everybody could use those machines independently, inclusively and accessibly. Now, we see a worrying and extraordinary rise in the use of flat-screen card payment machines. They are impossible for me to use. They are impossible for millions to use.
A worrying principle—I hope my noble friend the Minister will agree that it is such—underpins this. Through technological update, change and rollout, things that were previously accessible are now inaccessible. I do not believe that anybody in your Lordships’ House or elsewhere in the country wants that to be the case when it comes to financial services and products—surely not when it comes to any services or products. Does my noble friend the Minister agree? What do the Government intend to do to ensure that all financial services and products are indeed accessible for all users?
I move on to Amendment 187 on access to banking services, and a number of issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, touched on. With this amendment, I want to highlight the issue of acceptance of cash. There are a number of ways in which one could have gone about trying to assure its acceptance, such as imposing an obligation on retailers or on those of a certain size or kind, or on retailers offering a particular service. One of the major issues with acceptance of cash, specifically for small businesses, is what they do with that cash once they have it. It cannot be that cash becomes burdensome and expensive, particularly for small and micro-businesses. It cannot be that they have to spend an hour at lunch or the end of the day potentially closing their premises to drive to the next town or village to deposit the cash.
In Amendment 187, I suggest that all high streets of a specific size should have banking services which include deposits—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, will forgive me for interrupting him, I am afraid that there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes, but perhaps the noble Lord will resume his speech when the Committee resumes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, could I just have the attention of the Committee for a second? The 10 minutes are now up but we know that there will be another vote, almost certainly immediately after the result of this one has been declared. Perhaps it would be better if the Committee did not properly resume until after that vote is completed, if that is agreeable to noble Lords.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 187 seeks to draw together the need for access to cash and acceptance of cash, but in no sense places burdensome requirements on retailers or financial services providers, in terms of the provision in local communities, by virtue of what is now possible through shared banking hubs. As we heard earlier in the debate, since the Bill entered Parliament on 20 July 2022, 390 bank branches have closed. Can the Minister say how many shared banking hubs have opened in that time? If we plot a similar trajectory for this year, which seems reasonable on the data we have available to us, and suggest a similar, if not slightly higher, number of bank branches closing, how many shared banking hubs will be open by 31 December this year?
Amendment 187 would provide access to banking facilities on every high street and give the Treasury the power to determine the size and scale of that high street to enable provision across the country for individuals and micro, small and medium-sized enterprises for deposit and withdrawal for the benefit of the community, the economy and our country.
Moving to Amendment 189, if we consider not only the need for cash but the current geopolitical circumstances we find ourselves in, it would seem a very good idea to classify the cash network as critical national infrastructure. I thank my noble friend Lord Naseby who has put his name to this amendment, which simply states that the cash network should be critical national infrastructure because of economic reasons. I believe we can move positively to a digital financial future where everybody is included. It is one heck of a transition, but I believe we can get there. Even when we reach that point, for reasons of reliance, there may well still be a need for cash. The level of the cash network could be determined by the Government, but having a cash network would seem to be a thoroughly good idea for reasons of resilience, unless the Minister can suggest an alternative second or third line of resilience, which I would be delighted to hear.
Finally, my Amendment 239 asks the Government to consider an access to digital financial services review. This is critical and timely. It would build on the great work that was done with the Access to Cash Review published in 2019. It would have many of the same aims, but in no sense the same specificities. If the logic was good for an access to cash review, which I believe it was, does my noble friend agree that the logic for an access to digital financial services review is equally good? I suggest that the review should look at issues around access to digital payments, online platforms, mobile applications, skills and, crucially, connectivity.
It is probably best to look at this in terms of an example. Imagine a mobile application, the best digital payments application ever created. However, I do not own a smartphone, so that digital payment is not being made. Imagine the same application, but it is not accessible. That digital payment is not being made. Imagine I own a smartphone and I have that app, but I am in an area of low or no connectivity. I could have the best digital skills, the best smartphone and this best app, but the payment is not being made. Imagine I have the app, the smartphone and the connectivity, but I do not have the digital skills. That payment is not being made.
It is those issues and more that we urgently need to look into with an access to digital financial services review, which can come up with recommendations for the Government to put into practice for the benefit not just of individuals but of micro-businesses, small and medium-sized enterprises, local economies, communities, cities and our country. The logic was good for an Access to Cash Review; I believe it is good for an access to digital financial services review.
To conclude, we need access to cash, as well as acceptance of cash; access to banking services on every high street; cash as critical national infrastructure; and an access to digital financial services review. Will my noble friend the Minister channel a retro TSB marketing campaign and, for all these amendments, be the Minister who likes to say yes?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendments 179 and 190 in this group. I am not very enthusiastic at all about the provisions for cash access and distribution in the Bill. I am far from clear that a heavy-handed regulatory solution, which is what we have in the Bill, is necessary to preserve cash access and distribution, but, if we have to have it, I believe that the powers in the Bill should be time limited, which is what my Amendments 179 and 190 seek to achieve. Under these, the powers would expire in 10 years, unless the Treasury brought a statutory instrument giving a later date.
This is not a hard-nosed sunset clause, because we genuinely do not know what the future will be like. What we do know is that, before Covid, the use of cash was on a long-term downward trend and the use of debit cards had already overtaken cash. Covid then accelerated those trends so that, by 2019, debit card usage was 50% higher than the use of cash, and the latest data for 2021 shows that debit cards were used three times more often than cash. UK Finance forecasts that, by 2031, cash will account for only 6% of transactions while debit cards will account for more than half.
I do not deny that some people are more comfortable using cash than other payment options, and I accept that digital exclusion exists. It may well be a proportionate response to the current need for cash to protect its availability in the way that the Bill does, but I find it hard to see why we should set cash up on a pedestal as though it is some form of human right.
There is a large cost associated with cash provision. The Access to Cash Review found that it costs around £5 billion per annum. That is ultimately borne by all users of banking services, with the possible exception of holders of basic bank accounts, which do not cover their costs anyway and are already loading costs on to other users. As the use of cash continues to plummet, the cost will become disproportionately high because most of the costs involved are fixed.
I am certain that the future is digital, and the real need in the medium term is not to build shrines around cash points but to incentivise the financial services sector to make digital payment systems more accessible and inclusive. The best fintech brains should be put to work on this, and the banks need to see that it is in their interests to support innovation. This is where the regulators should be putting their efforts, rather than working out where cash points should be.
For this reason, I quite like the idea behind my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond’s Amendment 239, which calls for a review of access to digital financial services, although I am not sure that now is quite the right time. I am also not sure that a review should result in decisions made by government. We need to incentivise the providers of financial services to provide answers for this, rather than thinking that government can dictate how things will work in practice as society changes.
Some of the other amendments in this group, in particular those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, seek to cling to an idea of high street banking that has already been overtaken by events. Bank branches closed because people stopped going to them; I predict that the new hubs will go the same way. The future is digital—that is what we should be trying to encourage. Making banks shoulder the costs of branches or hubs that are little used will simply increase the costs of the banking sector. This will end up harming consumers because costs will be passed on to them or, in some cases, providers may decide to withdraw from servicing particular sectors. In trying to preserve high street provision, the outcomes for consumers are not good.
I do not believe that it is responsible to legislate to preserve a version of the past unless there is clear evidence that the benefits outweigh the costs. I doubt that the cost-benefit case could, in truth, be made at the moment for maintaining branches or paying for the setting up of hubs, but I am absolutely certain that, when we look back in 10 or 20 years’ time, we will be amazed that we even thought that standing Canute-like against technological and societal change was the right thing to do in this area.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I recognise the good intentions of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, in introducing her Amendment 176. However, the tide is running out for cash. We are not the most advanced country in this area. It is now almost impossible to use cash in Sweden. What does my noble friend the Minister know about how the authorities in countries such as Sweden, which have largely dispensed with cash in daily life and where retailers are not prohibited from refusing to accept cash, support those who have no bank account, debit card or credit card?
I sympathise with the aim of this amendment. I regret the disappearance of the bank manager, but I doubt that this is an area where the Government should be too prescriptive. Where there really is demand to meet a bank manager, surely the market will respond and one or more banks will locate a manager where he or she is needed.
I support Amendments 179 and 190, to which my noble friend Lady Noakes has already spoken so ably. Her amendments recognise the reality of the disappearing role of cash.
I have sympathy for the aims of Amendments 180 and 181 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, as I think it important that banks continue to provide in- person banking services where there is demand for them.
I sympathise with Amendments 238 and 239 in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. The way the KYC rules are interpreted by banks and credit card providers is completely absurd and disproportionate. It really is ridiculous to have to prove one’s existence to an institution with which one has had an active business relationship for many decades. Can my noble friend the Minister tell the Committee whether she agrees that a review of the KYC rules is absolutely necessary?
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I shall be brief. I have put my name to Amendments 180, 182 and 189.
I have a couple of points to make on Amendment 180. First, proposed new subsection (2) is on essential in-person banking services. My wife and I were just in a position in which we needed a face-to-face meeting with our joint-stock bank. The nearest one is eight miles away, which is not exactly around the corner. It was extremely difficult to find the right person in that particular bank, despite the requirement being created by that bank. I am sure that others have had that experience. There is a need to have the ability to have reasonably convenient face-to-face meetings with knowledgeable people who are prepared to work on Fridays, when the rest of us are working. In our case, we work only four days a week—they are just long days—but that is by the by.
Secondly, proposed new subsection (4), to be inserted by the amendment, refers to “applicable local authority areas”. We must never forget that we now have a combination of district and single-tier authorities. The difference is that it can be many miles from one town to another in single-tier authorities.
Apart from that, I hope that my noble friend the Minister takes very seriously the points made in the amendments of my noble friend Lord Holmes. They are well worth listening to and analysing.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I support the general thrust of the amendments on access to cash and the availability of real banks, if I can put it that way. I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that the future is digital and that our effort should be to incentivise the financial sector to make it easier for those people who, at the moment, lack the confidence to use digital methods. I accept that she is right, up to a point; we probably are moving to a cashless society. So far, however, the financial sector has shown itself to be rather backward in coming forward with innovative solutions for people who lack confidence.
Secondly, there is enough evidence around to suggest that, at the moment, enough people—millions of people—use cash. They often use cash as a way of budgeting at a very difficult time. I would be loath for us to take action that disenables them from doing so. One of the concerns about access to cash is not just that the number of machines is being reduced but that the amount of free access to cash is, I understand, also reducing. Some of this is to do with the way that fees are charged by the LINK facility. I will not put the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, on the spot, but there are issues around the way in which that policy has developed over the past few years, as it seems to be putting pressure on some of the cash providers. This, again, needs to be looked at.
I was very struck by an article in the Guardian today about a 91 year-old who
“discovered that her pension and benefits payments had been stopped and her direct debits cancelled after a Barclays agent recorded that she had died and closed her account.”
I realise that hard cases cause bad law but her experience brought home to me many of the problems that are being faced. She
“informed Barclays that her husband had died. She asked for his name to be removed from their joint account and replaced with that of her daughter … who has third-party access to her account. Instead, she was marked as deceased and the account was closed. Her pension and benefit payments were returned to the Department for Work and Pensions and her direct debits were stopped. She discovered the mistake when she returned from a family Christmas to find her phone line and energy supply had been cut off and a sheaf of letters from companies and the council demanding payment.”
The article continues, as she then
“made two trips to her nearest Barclays branch and was told on both occasions by staff that she was recorded as dead. The bank refused to discuss the case with her daughter because her third-party authority had been revoked when the account was closed.”
This recalls the experience of my wife and I, who had power of attorney for our parents. Once they have died, you lose that power of attorney; it becomes very difficult to have any interaction with the bank at all, and the bank itself is often unsympathetic when you try to discuss this.
In Mrs Roper’s case, the account was eventually reopened and the payments restored after intervention by the Guardian. However, as the article states:
“Roper’s ordeal highlights the obstacles facing vulnerable customers who do not have access to online banking. A Barclays customer for 65 years, she is unable to cope with the automated menus on the customer service phone line and, since her local branch closed, she is forced to take two buses to the next town to withdraw money and manage her account. The only available appointment to request the account change was at a branch 23 miles away where staff did not know her. She brought the required documents, but the bank refused to proceed with the requested name change because she could not recall her little-used pin number. She was told her to make another appointment when she had remembered her pin.”
I am afraid that this is all too common. When we talk about encouraging people to use online facilities, I recall my mother in her last year or so. She was very frail. Even using phones with big numbers, not smartphones, became very difficult. With banks and other financial services, we know who the policy people are; they are often the same young people who work in government developing policy. I accept that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is right about where we are going as technology moves on. However, we are talking about forgotten millions of people here. So far, because I do not see the financial sector responding, we need some safeguards in the Bill. Before Report, I hope that we can coalesce around one amendment that will really enable us to ensure that there are strong responsibilities on the regulator to encourage best practice here.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I want to speak to my Amendments 185 and 188 in particular, as well as on the broader points made by other amendments in relation to access to cash and basic banking services. I declare an interest as London’s Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience and the chair of the London Resilience Forum, not least because the London City Resilience Strategy highlights the risk of moving to a cashless society.
First, Amendment 188 concerns the importance of cash to national resilience. It is of critical importance that the Government have due regard to what might happen in some crisis situations were we to become an entirely, or almost entirely, cashless society. Comment has been made on the march towards a cashless society in Scandinavian countries, including by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, but we should also note that these countries have not only greater equality and lower financial exclusion than the UK but, in formal government guidance to their populations on preparedness, they recommend that their citizens have some cash for use in an emergency.
The Norwegian Government’s English language public information leaflet on personal preparedness says:
“Most of us are completely dependent on electricity in our everyday lives: for heating, light, cooking, hot water and running electrical appliances and devices. Storms, natural disasters, sabotage, technical problems, terrorism or acts of war can result in many people’s electricity or water supply being cut off.”
The digital world in which we live, which is reliant on electricity, creates huge risks as well as opportunities. The world is in many ways less resilient to shock than it was previously as a result. You only have to look to the recent cyber incident that Royal Mail experienced, with weeks of not being able to send international post, to understand the real risks of a world in which individuals, companies, sectors and countries become overly reliant on digital finance and digital infrastructure.
On a national basis, everything from a major power outage to a rota power outage—your Lordships will know that local resilience forums were asked to plan for one this winter so this is not a hypothetical situation—whether this is through shortages, hostile cyberattacks or a major storm, could restrict the ability of individuals, businesses and government to function. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, that access to cash should be viewed as part of the national critical infrastructure.
The scenarios in which an overreliance on digital banking, with an absence of cash as a back-up, becomes an additional complication or risk in an emergency situation are not far-fetched. This is a genuine threat to our country’s resilience and to our national security in an unstable world. I therefore ask Ministers to consider including this amendment and would suggest that, as a minimum, the ongoing work that the Government are undertaking on the national risk register considers what additional risks might emerge in relation to emergency situations in which cash was no longer available.
There is limited reference to this issue online. In my attempt to get more extensive examples or comments to back up my points, I did not find much of note to cite relating to the UK. This actually made me more concerned, not less. The reality is that it is not far-fetched to have a scenario in which we could lose access to digital finance or payments systems for a number of days—or weeks—on a national, regional or sub-regional basis. The reason cash has lasted so long is that it is, in essence, resilient. That is not the only reason for keeping cash but we need, as a country, to avoid sleepwalking into losing the resilience that it can provide. If you spoke to people working on resilience in Sweden, for example, I think they would also note that it presents additional problems. This is not about preserving history, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggests, but about preserving our resilience.
Amendment 185 in my name, which is on the regional experience of cash provision, is intended to highlight the need for us to understand and plan, through the FCA, for cash provision—not just on average, or on the whole, but in relation to whether provision has a regional and potentially sub-regional imbalance. This would enable any regional disproportionality that exists to be addressed. I am particularly concerned that we have large areas, both rural and within cities, that no longer have banks. I know, for example, that the entire constituency of Bradford South no longer has a bank. Like others, I am particularly concerned about the risks of there being a lack of cash and basic banking services for the most vulnerable in society. Others have already spoken on this point and given detailed statistics illustrating it, so I will not dwell on it.
In conclusion, I commend those noble Lords who have tabled specific amendments covering free access to cash and access to basic banking services. It is not a coincidence that Amendment 182 has cross-party sponsors and I commend my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Altmann, for their work on it. I also commend those in the other place, particularly the honourable Member for Mitcham and Morden, who have pushed for this matter to be addressed. Quite simply, free access to cash and basic banking services must be guaranteed. At the heart of British personal banking lies free access to your own money. It is outrageous that if you are poor, you are more likely to have to rely on charged-for cash machines. This legislation provides an opportunity to address the issue, as well as ensuring that we safeguard our country’s resilience.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I will not detain the Committee for very long but perhaps I could say one or two things. Briefly, I come at this by thinking about rural sustainability and rural business. I declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition.
Before I say anything on that, a month ago I had my wallet stolen on my way into Parliament and I learned a lesson: do not keep all your cards in your wallet but have some different ones. I was, to use a theological term, absolutely stuffed that morning. Fortunately, I had a member of staff at home. I went back and cancelled the cards then phoned up my bank, which said, “Yes, come up—we can give you some cash”. When I got up there, I was told, “No, the system’s got it wrong and we aren’t able to give you cash here”. I then had to get someone to take me six miles to get some cash. When I eventually got into London for some meetings, I went to four places before I could find somewhere to buy lunch because I had only cash. This is actually quite a complex thing.
Actually, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes: there is a huge change going on—of course there is. But how are we to work with that, not least if we are going to think about levelling up? In my diocese, for example, if I go into Citizens Advice in poor areas in Stevenage, they tell me that people sometimes positively get rid of their credit and debit cards because they do not know how to control money. There are some real issues here about financial literacy and discipline to help people with saving and so on.
Going back to the rural issue, much of this stuff depends on rural businesses having broadband. Large rural areas of our country are not-spots, where there is no access. Some places do not even have good access on a direct phone line, certainly to do some forms of banking. I therefore think that we are in a transition period. We certainly need protections in place for the foreseeable future as we try to work out how this goes and how we take it forward.
I was recently in the small rural town of Ampthill in my diocese in Bedfordshire. A whole group of people talked to me afterwards; they got on to this subject and said how it really affects small start-up businesses at the moment. I hear that we have to think about how we should take this forward but, over the coming years, we need some sort of provision to guarantee some basic levels of service so that we can help rural sustainability, rural businesses and individuals who live in those areas.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise briefly to offer the Green group’s support for the general sense of direction here on both the provision of cash and the review of resilience. It is not an accident or a convenience that those two things have been brought together, as the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, just made clear.
We come back to a fundamental question: what is the financial sector for? If it is there to serve the real economy and real lives, it must meet people’s needs in both good and bad times. That applies at the individual level and the national one. The system must be able to stand up to not just financial shocks but the kinds of shocks that we know about in this age of the climate emergency, the nature crises and the threat of pandemics.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, was speaking, I was reflecting on being in Lancaster in 2016 about a week after Storm Desmond. I saw a city in shock. I saw what happened when they lost electricity for a day and a half or so. Digitisation and the disappearance of cash have come a long way since 2016 but people were absolutely desperate. They were not able to meet their basic needs, which surely must be part of the financial sector’s responsibility.
I broadly agree with the general tenor of everything that has been said but I want to make one strong point of disagreement with what most people have said. There is an idea that this is a transitional phase and that, once we have gone past the generation where people have not had digital in the prime of their life, the phase will end and everybody will then be able to use digital. I was going to tell exactly the same story as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, did. I will not repeat it but I will draw a further lesson from it. It is a story about a 91 year-old lady. She may have been able to cope with the telephone system and the buttons at 70 or even 80. I know someone in this situation; he is an older gentleman who finds it harder and harder each year to navigate the complications of digital.
None of us in this Room knows what our capabilities will be in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time. Just because you can do something now, you cannot guarantee that you will be able to do it in 20 years’ time. In terms of national resilience and meeting everybody’s needs, we genuinely have to make sure that, long into the future—potentially for ever if we look at that kind of scale—there will always be somewhere where you can walk up to a person and say, “This is my problem. I need you to help me sort it out”. That person needs to have the resources, knowledge, skills and power to sort out that situation for you because, ultimately, only having a person who looks you in the eye, sees the problem and deals with it will really meet everybody’s needs.
I have one final thought. There is sometimes a feeling that we have to have maximum efficiency and meet the needs of the majority, and tough luck for the rest. If we have a system that meets the needs of the most vulnerable people in our society—this is often said about public transport systems but it applies far more broadly—we have a system that is good for everybody in our society.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
My Lords, since I have not spoken in Committee so far, I should remind noble Lords of my interest as a former chairman of a bank and a current shareholder. However, I am not going to defend the service levels of banks, which I recognise need improvement.
On these amendments, I point out that, while I understand the rationale behind the desire to maintain access to cash, everything has a cost. We need to consider the cost of what is proposed as well as the benefit. My noble friend Lady Noakes is right that the shift towards digital and away from cash has snowballed over the past few years. It is not just customers who prefer not having to carry cash around. Many small businesses, clubs, associations and societies find it much easier now to have a low-cost terminal with which they can process membership dues, fees or even small transactions. It makes the accounting so much easier and avoids having to deal with collecting and disbursing large amounts of cash.
The move towards digital is happening across the whole economy. People talk about keeping branches open but there are many branches where only a handful of people come in during the week. When you think about the cost of maintaining the building infrastructure, as well as the staffing, security and systems, the cost per transaction becomes astronomical. Those costs have to be borne by somebody; they are borne by the other bank customers in higher fees, charges and interest rates. Nothing comes without a cost so we have to consider what the appropriate cost-benefit answer is.
As many noble Lords have said, clearly there are people who find it difficult to use digital technology and need access to cash, but there are other ways of—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord but I am afraid that there is another Division in the Chamber. The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes and we will resume with the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, when the moment comes.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
I was making the point that maintaining open bank branches as a solution to this problem is potentially a very expensive way of solving the problem and that the cost would be borne by other bank customers. We need to accept that there may be better ways of serving the genuine needs of those who cannot cope well with the digital economy and may need access to cash. Clearly there are potential solutions using other shops or post offices in localities to provide access to cash where that can be done, but another solution that many banks are adopting is the development of mobile banking branches. A mobile branch that visits a village once week may not be as good as a permanently open branch but at least it gives access to cash and the costs become much more affordable and socially acceptable.
We need to be cautious about assuming that maintaining the structure of the past is the right way to meet the genuine needs of those who have difficulties. We need to avoid fossilising a structure that is no longer fit for purpose. If this debate had been happening 20 years ago about telecoms, we might have wanted a law that said there had to be a telephone box in every high street. If we had had this debate 100 years ago, we would be requiring there to be a horse trough in every high street. There have to be other ways in which we can meet the genuine needs of those who have special needs without the blanket approach of insisting that highly costly and inappropriate branches remain open in places where there is no demand for them.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I enthusiastically support Amendment 186. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, spelled out extremely articulately the importance of banking hubs and how that name could often be prosecuted for mis-selling. Even banks themselves, in terms of the service that they offer when you go into the few that are still open, can be accused of having only the minimum service required.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, told a heartbreaking story about a 91 year-old but you do not have to be 91 and have a heartbreaking story. Things can just go wrong; your card can stop working or whatever. When you try to solve it on your phone and it does not work, you then go into the bank and, to be honest, you are treated as though you are wasting the bank’s time and as though you have done something wrong. The staff often cannot solve the problem and ask, “Why don’t you solve it online or on your phone?” The answer is that I would have done so if I could have done. In other words, I do not think that it is necessarily a special needs problem, as the noble Lord just said. I think it can happen to anyone. Sometimes, you need human intervention to sort out your banking.
I am also interested in supporting those amendments that would allow access to cash, including Amendments 180 and 181 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I especially like Amendment 189 from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and its attempt to make cash critical national infrastructure in the UK; I also support Amendment 189A, which is headed “Access to physical banking services”.
I suppose I am concerned about noting that the importance of cash relates not just to those who struggle with their phones or other technology. This discussion sometimes implies that some of us are just Luddites who cannot cope or do not want to embrace the full excitement of new technology and digital futures. I want to emphasise that I can see the advantages of a cashless society. Mainstream cashless transactions carry certain information about payment participants, what was purchased and when, which can be a huge barrier to money laundering and tax avoidance. That is genuinely important but, for individuals as consumers, it can also mean—this may be slightly different to what others have emphasised—that it helps people with budgeting because they have electronic receipts and can see both what is going in and what is going out. I am rather enthusiastic about those technological steps forward; I do not in any way want to hold back the march of progress, in the way that some have implied.
However, precisely because cashless transactions mean that information about payment participants is available to financial institutions and banks in a different kind of way, they can also give those organisations huge surveillance capability and invasive powers in ways that we did not see so much in the past. It is then not about you taking cash out but about everything having to be recorded. This means that people are not able to do the things you could with discretion. It should be noted—this is not entirely being paranoid—that, in China, financial surveillance is used to censor and restrict people’s freedom to express opinions against the state.
Noble Lords might think that that would never happen in a democracy but, in a later amendment in my name—when I say later, I mean if it ever arrives; it is Amendment 241B, should anyone like to note that, because I do not suppose that anyone will be here to listen to my speech on it—I was inspired by payment processing in fintech companies, such as PayPal, and the move towards everything being cashless, with a cashless society and everything being digitised. This has meant that PayPal, for example, can close down accounts on the basis of politics; in fact, it has done so, so I am not just being paranoid.
There also tends to be a casual assumption that those who want to keep their financial transactions private—that is, by using cash from time to time—might be up to something dodgy, as though the only reason someone might want to be free to choose to use cash is if they are involved in embezzlement or tax fraud. Today, it has been much friendlier than that; people just assume that you are technologically incompetent and old-fashioned, so cannot keep up. We just have to be a bit careful about this. I have also noticed a trend where financial services are judging how individuals are making their purchasing decisions—judging their use of money in a way that they may not have done if were not quite so detailed.
Recently, I was interested that HSBC—my bank—was involved in a report that condemned people’s decisions about how much they spent on gambling and was backing affordability checks. I know that I disagree with some noble Lords in the Room on gambling—I can already see them—as I think that is a legal leisure activity and that you should be able to do what you want. The idea that the bank is saying that it has customers who spend too much on gambling, a perfectly legal leisure activity, and then gives a breakdown of them, indicates that rather than being a dispassionate financial service it is getting involved in things in a way that it perhaps should not. I have never gambled, but my bank could well send me a note about how much I am spending in TK Maxx, saying that has all gone a bit mad.
When we had cash, we took the money out, we spent it on what we wanted and nobody could see. A cashless society creates a slightly different situation. Amendment 186 on accessibility and Amendment 184 on levels of cash acceptance, along with the whole issue of digital exclusion and financial inclusion, are very important but do not quite capture some of the broader political trends associated with this issue.
I am also very sympathetic to the notion of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. On the one hand, cash is not a human right—I do not want to get stuck on that, as I am never keen on regulations lasting for ever; a time-limited sunset clause is a good idea—but I am anxious that we do not forget the political trends surrounding this by simply treating it as a technical issue.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, if I may come in briefly, I am very sympathetic to the aims of noble Lords who wish to see cash access and banking services available to those who need them and do not use or rely on digital. However, I agree with the aims of the Bill: international competitiveness and growth. I do not think that this Bill’s powers regarding the financial markets and services sector should be used in a blanket way to impose an obligation on service providers to provide a service whose use, by all accounts and evidence, is on the decline.
Not only do I support the two amendments from my noble friend Lady Noakes, but I think we should pay attention to the overall aims for the regulators in this Bill, which are international competitiveness and growth. I urge the Minister to focus on the real problem of access to cash and banking services for many people, and, where there is a problem or gap, to focus the efforts and use the powers of government on trying to deal with the declining number of users in our society—albeit a real group—rather than use the law to impose obligations in a blanket way on the sector, contrary to the aims of competitiveness and growth. As noble Lords have explained, such a move could undermine the competitiveness of the banking sector.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The noble Baroness appeared to be suggesting that the provision of services, including the cost, should be done by the Government and that the private sector should collect the profits. Could she clarify whether she was saying that?
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. No, I was saying that, when we use the law, we should be very careful not to impose the costs on providers if the aim of the law is to encourage competition. There are reasonable aims which are agreed to by the whole of society. It is a reasonable aim for society to require and want cash access. My heart agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, as she powerfully moved her amendment, but we should draw a line between a blanket restriction on providers of these services and finding how government can help and encourage other providers of services to do it. I was just talking to other noble Lords in the Lobby about this. I know of voluntary groups, market groups and social providers which are out there helping such groups and finding ingenious solutions to meet the gap, where there is one.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, surely we have a situation in which the market is failing. In essence, the banks are not interested because they take the same view as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes: that this part of the market is dying. They do not want to be involved because they want to be in a dynamic, new market. Faced with that and the 7 million people who use cash each year—in the current cost of living crisis that many people face, cash is used as a budgetary tool—what can we do if the market is clearly not providing? From our point of view, legislation is the only lever we have because none of the regulators seems that interested. Government departments are not; they are engaged in removing cash as much as possible. What is the alternative?
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I do not have an answer—I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord—but this Bill is not the place for that. Its aims and purposes are to make the UK sector more nimble and competitive internationally so that it can move ahead in a post-Brexit world and we can all benefit from a successful financial sector. Putting caveats, restrictions and obligations on a sector can add costs to customers, consumers and all who use these services. However, I think that that is a good aim and is good to do. We should have a special committee to see how we can encourage use, short of using the law as a big stick on one sector of providers. There are many ways that have opened up in the market that are already providing use, which I can discuss later.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, this is a key group for the Labour Party politically; it contains four of our amendments. Amendment 180 would require His Majesty’s Treasury and the FCA to publish a review of the need for
“access to essential in-person banking services”
and to ensure
“a minimum level of access”
to them.
Amendment 181 would require HMT to
“publish a policy statement setting out its policies in relation to the provision of essential in-person banking services, including … support for online banking, and maximum distances people can expect to travel to access services.”
I would be interested to know the Minister’s view on the reasonable distance for an elderly or disabled customer to have to travel to speak to someone from their bank.
Amendment 182 is perhaps the most important. It would compel HMT to
“guarantee a minimum level of access to free of charge cash access”.
Amendment 184 would require the FCA to
“monitor and report on levels of cash acceptance across the UK.”
I set out the crucial importance of free access to cash at Second Reading so I will not do so at length a second time; well, that is what it says here. Nobody has more interest in being speedy than me, or perhaps the Minister, because we have to be here for every minute of this Committee. We are almost in our 27th hour but this group is different from anything else that we have discussed. The rest of it—I cannot think of a polite way of putting it—is about activity that takes place for people like us. Quite a number of people work in the finance industry; we are looking at the nuances of it and how politicians should be involved.
However, the issue of cash is about our society. It is about the poorest and least competent people in our society. Technology has been a substantial disruptor. It is a disruptor that particularly applies to finance. It has allowed financial transactions to become extraordinarily efficient and has created a whole new customer base of people who are comfortable with technology. They have access to a whole new marketplace. We know that the dynamics of that have probably been benign for society.
However, the other problem is that it has created a divide in our society. I ran an organisation that used to have a lot of cash; I am all too familiar with the tremendous impact of approaching a cashless society. In all the knowledge in the world, the last bits are the most expensive bits. Yes, the cost of transactions goes up and so on and so forth, but we cannot afford to create the divide in our society that is emerging. We must support all parts of our society seriously. We must recognise that, in their lives, people sometimes need all banking services. We must recognise that some people simply cannot envisage how to budget without physically seeing it in separate pots. It is clearly a natural reaction if you are running out of money. You can see it there and have confidence because you know that, if you go into the grey world of accounts, banks, overdrafts, loans and things like that, all sorts of horrible things happen. For that group in society—it is probably 10% of our society so it is a substantial number of people—we must find a way of maintaining the public service. We must achieve a minimum service.
The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, said what all providers of service say: if you are not ultra-efficient, you load the inefficiency costs on to other customers. It so happens that being ultra-efficient does not do much harm to your profit line either. Big businesses such as banks pursue the maximisation of shareholder value. It is in the law. They are supposed to do it, for Christ’s sake. We should not be surprised when they do but I rarely see them turning into charities. We have got to find ways. We do not have to keep all the branches open; even I can work that out. We have to be much more inventive in how we service this need, which is still large, but the way we must do that is by creating duties on the purveyors of financial services as well as rights and constraints.
It is proper for the law to create duties to look after the poorer members of our society. That is why so many people have said that it is important for a variety of needs—resilience and so on—that we maintain it. The banks must play their part. They have enjoyed massive exploitation—I do not use that in a pejorative sense—of information technology, probably more so than any other section of our society. They must recognise that there has to be a cross-subsidy in this situation because we must restore financial equity to all our society.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard in this debate, the nature of banking is changing. In 2021, 72% of people banked online, and 57% on their mobile phones. Meanwhile, 85% of payments were made without cash, up from 45% a decade earlier, and 86% of UK adults used contactless payments.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
Were 85% of the number of payments made without cash, or was it 85% of the value of payments?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I will check for the noble Lord because I do not have that level of detail in my notes. They say that “85% of payments” were made without cash, not “the value of payments”, but I should double-check to clarify for him.
In the light of these innovations in the way that we bank, the Government recognise that it is incredibly important that people are not left behind—we have heard that in today’s debate. Many people still rely on physical services: in particular, millions of people still rely on cash and need access to withdrawal and deposit services.
Working with industry, the Government are already undertaking positive action to support cash access in this context. For example, existing initiatives subsidise free-to-use ATMs in remote and deprived areas. Following changes in the Financial Services Act 2021, there is a new ability to have cashback without purchase services, enabling withdrawals to the penny that people request. Communities can ask LINK to assess whether additional cash services are needed, with several major banks and building societies funding new shared services. As a result of that initiative, over 70 communities are due to get new cash deposit facilities.
In that context, it is important not to underestimate the significance of the provisions contained in the Bill. It is the first time, in UK law, that we are protecting people’s ability to access cash. The Bill provides the FCA, as the independent regulator, with the responsibility and necessary powers to ensure reasonable provision of withdrawal and deposit services.
In evidence to Parliament, the regulator said that it anticipates taking account of reasonable access to free cash services for personal customers—subject to due process, which includes a requirement to consult on its rules. In using its powers, the FCA will utilise the wealth of data that it has collected, including on access at the regional level, and it must have regard to local deficiencies in cash access services and the Government’s policy statement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, asked about the policy statement. It is currently being developed, and we expect it to be published after the Bill completes its passage. It is important that it takes into account the latest available data and evidence ahead of its publication.
I have clarification for the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on the statistic that I used, so I shall not need to write. I can confirm that 85% of the number, not the value, of payments were made without cash.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
While we are getting clarifications in flight, may I ask my noble friend the Minister about the 86% of people using contactless? Are 86% of people using contactless all the time or are they making one payment a year? If someone from the Box is able to answer that in flight, that would be helpful.
Baroness Penn (Con)
That request has been noted. Reading the statistic in my notes, I would say that 86% of adults have used contactless payments, rather than it being a comment on how much they use them as part of their payment mix. If I am wrong, I hope that the people supporting me will tell me.
I talked about the policy statement and the significance of the measure that we are taking in the Bill. We have heard from the Committee that not everyone agrees with that approach. In legislating to protect access to cash, the Government have sought to provide that reassurance for those who rely on cash for a number of different reasons.
We have heard why it can be important for accessibility and for people to manage their finances. We have also heard about privacy concerns. However, we have not sought for the legislation to be prescriptive on the cost, type of facility or range of services offered at facilities. We are seeking to ensure that this primary legislation allows for innovation and flexibility, as the needs of people and our communities evolve over time. I think those advocating for greater access to services also recognised the need for that flexibility and change in needs over time. It is for those reasons that the Government do not support Amendments 176, 178, 182 and 185 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Twycross, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Kennedy of Cradley) (Non-Afl)
There is a Division in the Chamber. We will resume with the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, in 10 minutes’ time.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, we were addressing the question of when alternative service provision is put in place and the accessibility of that service provision.
I have addressed the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans about connectivity. He also made a point about customers needing, for example, a smartphone to make payments or access online banking. The FCA has stated that it expects payment service providers to offer solutions that work for all groups of people. It encourages all firms to consider the impact of their solutions for customers. The regulators’ guidance recognises that not all customers will have mobile phones or a reliable signal and that viable alternatives should be provided in these situations.
All service providers, including banks and building societies, are bound under the Equality Act to make reasonable adjustments where necessary. Many of them support access to digital services through initiatives to distribute devices, teach skills, or facilitate support networks.
As my noble friend Lord Holmes highlighted, moving towards digital can create opportunities for accessibility but it can also create barriers. It is important that we embrace these technological changes in ways that reduce those barriers, so his point about ensuring that interfaces, including ATMs and point-of-sale terminals, are accessible is really important.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
Would the Minister indulge me for a moment? I have been intrigued by her discussion of the role of digitisation. I refer to Amendment 184, tabled by my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, on the duty to collect data on cash acceptance.
When teaching monetary economics, the first thing that you ask students to understand is, “What is money?” Money is something that is generally accepted in discharge of a debt. That is the definition of money. The issue of cash acceptance is therefore vital as society develops in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, outlined so clearly. What will happen is that, for the section of society who rely on cash—several million people—their cash will no longer be money. It will no longer be generally acceptable in payment of a debt. In those circumstances, the digital instrument will be crucial. However, if the digital instrument is issued only by companies, namely banks, to those who are customers of the banks, who have some basic criterion, it is surely the responsibility of the state to issue a digital instrument that is available to all citizens.
That being the case, to get to that stage, we need to know how cash is generally accepted. Therefore, the amendment, which contains a duty to collect data on cash acceptance, is vital for the development of future policy with respect to cash and digital instruments. The Minister rejected the amendment by saying that it is not the FCA’s responsibility. Can she tell me which department of government has this responsibility to collect data on cash acceptance?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, there are a number of ways to tackle the issues that the noble Lord referred to. There are various statistics around payment methods used by consumers in the UK; I quoted some at the start of my speech. The Government have not mandated service providers to accept certain forms of payment; that is not the approach we intend to take to ensure that people continue to have access to cash or money. I have said that, in supporting businesses’ access to deposit services, that will support people’s ability to use their cash as a form of payment.
The noble Lord also raised the question of a digital form of money. That is a question that the Government have looked at very carefully. We launched what I think was a joint consultation between the Government and the regulators, looking in more detail at the question of a central government digital currency and how to take forward that work, as well as considering questions such as those from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about privacy issues in a world of having a digital form of money versus having cash as a form of money.
I understand the importance of having a picture and the data that allows us to understand what is going on. I do not think that the data is necessarily the gap here; it is about how you provide for the ongoing use of cash in a society where rapid changes are being made. Our approach to that has been through legislating in this Bill on access to cash withdrawal and deposit facilities.
I was just talking about the importance of the accessibility of payment interfaces, including ATMs and point-of-sale terminals. I am pleased that UK Finance and the RNIB have developed accessibility guidelines for touch screen chip and PIN devices, as well as an approved list of accessible card terminals. The Government’s disability and access ambassador for banking, Kathryn Townsend, also encourages a consistent consumer experience and engagement with deaf advocacy groups.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to delay the Committee or the Minister but, on ATMs, I referred rather incoherently to the interchange fee paid by LINK. Will the Minister take back the issue that this is having a big impact on the viability of providing free cash by the companies that do so? This partly seems to be down to the ownership of LINK and the influence of banks in relation to it, but does she accept that there can be very profound effects when you lose free access to cash and have to pay for it? I was told this morning at a meeting with NoteMachine —one of the companies that provide cash—that six out of 10 withdrawals are for £10 because people are using it to budget. The problem is, if you no longer have access to free cash, you then have to pay £1.50 for it. That is a huge rate. These are some of the practical issues that I hope the Minister will be prepared to take away between now and Report.
Even accepting that the Minister may not be prepared to accept any of these amendments, it seems that at the moment we do not, despite FCA guidance, have a guarantee that the financial sector as a whole is going to change the way it operates. This is the problem that we face. If anything, its policies are driving cash out without recognising the impact on some very vulnerable people.
Baroness Penn (Con)
On interchange fees, decisions regarding the operation and funding arrangements for an ATM network are taken by the parties involved. The noble Lord will know that LINK has commitments to protect the broad geographic spread of free-to-use ATMs and is held to account against those obligations and commitments by the Payment Systems Regulator. It has specifically committed to protect free-to-use ATMs more than one kilometre away from the next nearest free ATM or Post Office and free access to cash on high streets, and it supports free-to-use ATMs in deprived areas through its financial inclusion programme.
I recognise the point that the noble Lord has made. Coming back to the provision in the Bill, while I understand that different amendments have been tabled to look at how it could be enhanced or altered, it is important to acknowledge that legislating to protect access to cash is the Government recognising the point that the Committee made and taking action to address it. We want to have flexibility in how that is delivered, but we are providing for it in primary legislation and I hope that principle is welcomed, even though there are different opinions about how it could best be delivered.
Drawing towards the end of my remarks, I was going to note specifically on accessibility that that question was considered by the most recent Financial Inclusion Policy Forum. As I was saying to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, while the Government do not support these amendments, I hope that noble Lords recognise the action that is being taken through the Bill and elsewhere, because the Government take these issues seriously. It is right to consider the outcome that we are all trying to deliver in a changing world: accessible financial services. That can mean a range of things, such as for people on low incomes being able to budget their money or for accessibility when it comes to disability, age or other factors. The way we have tried to approach access to cash in the Bill is by looking at delivering those outcomes in a flexible way, so I hope that at the moment the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, is able to withdraw her amendment and that other noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, it feels some time now since we started this group of amendments. I thank the Minister for her measured response in which she tried hard to reflect quite a wide range of views on the issues we have been talking about. I also thank all other noble Lords who have contributed. This has been a fascinating debate. There has been a reasonable degree on consensus in places, but by no means full consensus, and I certainly understand that.
I want to refer to a very important comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. He said that this group is different and is about whether we want a divided society. Another noble Lord said—I am sorry but I cannot remember who it was—that banks are not charities. I think we all understand that but it is for us as legislators, a point I made in my opening speech, to decide on the sort of society that we want. That is actually what this group of amendments is about.
I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and others, and I assure your Lordships that I am not stuck in the past. I make most of my payments by holding out my phone. However, a very helpful point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, which was that there are times when I do not want to pay like that. I still want to use cash sometimes, even though I can hold my phone out, and it is rather important that I have that choice.
Baroness Penn
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable the Bank to direct a central counterparty’s parent company to establish a separate holding company as a parent of the subsidiary, rather than requiring that holding company to be a separate financial holding company.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment at page 213, line 3 and omits the definition of “financial holding company” as it is no longer required.
“(ia) paragraph 34(6)(d),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that paragraph 34(6)(d) of Schedule 11 is read as including onward bridge central counterparties for the purpose of being able to convert liabilities owed by a central counterparty into securities issued by an onward bridge central counterparty.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would correct the definition of “initial margin requirements” so that it refers to the counterparty exposure that would arise if the clearing member lodging the initial margin defaulted.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that paragraph 127 of Schedule 11, regarding the admissibility of statements made to investigators, applies to statements made to investigators appointed under paragraph 121 of Schedule 11 as well as to those appointed under paragraph 122.
House of Lords
Green Investment
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the environmental provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act 2022 in the United States of America, and (2) the Green Deal Industrial Plan announced by the European Union in January; and what plans they have to prevent any resulting leakage of future green investment from the United Kingdom.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I ask to give leave to ask my Question standing on the Order Paper to the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I think that the noble Lord wants to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper; I hope so, anyway. The Government welcome international action on climate change, and work closely with allies and partners to ensure that we can collectively drive global decarbonisation. We continue to assess the impact of international policies on UK investment to ensure that we meet our net-zero and economic growth ambitions. The UK has made significant progress in decarbonising and growing our economy, and we will continue to back our ambitious targets with impactful domestic policy and targeted funding.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I will try to be a little more fluent in my follow-up question. This is very serious. Industry and many people see the Inflation Reduction Act and the EU response as a real threat to us—piggy in the middle—as an economy and on where we need to go on green investment. I do not get the impression that the Government have a plan here. It looks like we are a rabbit frozen in the headlamps of trucks coming in both directions. Is there really a plan coming for how we will survive this onslaught from our economic neighbours?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The short answer to the noble Lord’s question is yes, in essence. He is right to point to both these actions as potential threats, significantly so in the case of the US. The protectionist measures are the problem; we have no problem with it finally coming to the decarbonisation table. We are still waiting to see the details from the EU and will know more next week, but it does not look as though there will be much protectionism there: certainly, from the outline that I saw, none of the items listed is a particular threat. We are looking at this very closely across the Government and will be responding in due course.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, is this so-called Inflation Reduction Act not in fact an outright protectionist measure, very much pointing the wrong way for those of us who want freer trade worldwide? The Secretary of State says that she has been talking with like-minded countries about what to deal with and how to face the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has raised. Can the Minister assure us that, in the United States, we are talking to a like-minded country—we thought that it was—and explaining to it the collateral damage, which could be considerable, from this ill-considered measure?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I assure my noble friend that we are talking to the US about the provisions, but the legislation is the legislation. We all know the history of why it ended up as it did in the US Congress. Nevertheless, we will continue to engage the US, make our points and argue for open, free and fair competition.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, yesterday, Platform and Friends of the Earth Scotland published a report which showed how oil and gas workers could lead a just energy transition, with a training scheme that was standardised between offshore oil and gas and the new offshore industries, including wind, tidal and wave, to allow workers to take their skills to the new sectors. Will the Government act on those recommendations?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness has an advantage on me as I have not seen that report, but we have the North Sea transition plan, which does many of the same things that she talked about. As I have said before, we still have a need for oil and gas in the medium term during the transition, but the essential skills that many of those workers bring will be very useful in the new economy.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, the Government have adopted a state-level strategy, signing memoranda of understanding with various states: Indiana, South Carolina and North Carolina. Their focus is on clean tech and green trade. What other states are the Government currently in negotiations with, what are the expected benefits, and why should we be negotiating with individual states rather than the United States on this front?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Earl raises important points with regard to trade negotiations. I am not familiar with the details so I will have to write to him.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, there is a grotesque misnomer here. The Inflation Reduction Act will in fact raise trade barriers, push up prices and thus increase inflation. Worst of all, like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, it is likely to set off a series of beggar-my-neighbour retaliatory measures, not least from the European Union. Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that this country remains wedded to the principles of free trade and that, if others put rocks in their harbours, we will not retaliate by putting rocks in our harbours?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes an important point. I know how committed he is to and how hard he works for the principle of international free trade, which we totally support. We want to engage with the US on these matters but we need to convince it and, of course, the EU that free, fair and open trade benefits everyone. That is the key point that we need to put across to them.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, the scale of potential investment in both the US Inflation Reduction Act and the EU green deal shows a key recognition of just how much opportunity there is in investing in net-zero projects. The European Commission cites 35% to 40% of all jobs as potentially affected by the green transition, while analysis by Princeton University’s REPEAT project suggests that the policies in the US Act will create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Any leakage of investment away from the UK will also leak jobs, as the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, suggests. I ask the Minister to be specific about what steps the Government have taken to protect these opportunities for our communities to level up. For example, can we expect to see reference to this in next week’s Budget?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness would not expect me to go into detail but we will set out our plans shortly. However, it is important to recognise that the UK has made excellent progress in attracting private investment into low-carbon sectors. PwC’s 2023 annual global CEO survey found that the UK is now in the top three in the global investment market, second only to the US and China. Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimated that, in 2021 and 2022, the UK saw £48 billion of net-zero investment coming into the UK.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, while I recognise the concerns about the anti-competitiveness issues with the Inflation Reduction Act, I wonder whether the Minister has looked at the specific provisions in it in relation to onshore wind. There is support for investment and production, whereas in this country we make the infrastructure of onshore wind subject to far more difficult provisions than any other sort of infrastructure and we have kept it out of investment incentives. When are we going to change those policies?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness is dogged in her support for onshore wind and makes an important point. She will know that it is now eligible for CfDs and we are looking at how we can ensure more onshore wind investment with the support of local communities.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, given the Minister’s positive reply to his noble friend Lord Hannan, do the Government retain an open mind with regard to Tata, or other organisations not based in the UK, seeking up to half a trillion pounds of taxpayers’ subsidy money?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord would not expect me to comment on detailed negotiations with particular companies. We have long had a policy of open and free trade, but we have some relatively limited and targeted investments, including in the automotive sector, which have proved very successful. We are not going to follow the lead of the US and close our borders to foreign competition.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I congratulate the Government on the investment in National Savings bonds. Will my noble friend tell us what the level of investment has been and what type of projects have benefited from them?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am afraid I do not have that information to hand. I will need to write to my noble friend.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that the American policy is being driven by the fact that living standards in America—and in Europe and here—have been dropping? The gap between rich and poor is getting wider, and Governments have so far failed to address that problem.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not agree with the noble Lord. There are reasons why the US adopted its policy —investment, which we welcome, into green renewable energy, et cetera. Of course, the US is starting from an awfully long way behind the UK. One of the reasons it has to put in such large subsidies is that it has not provided the long-term legislative certainty that we have.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, mention of rocks dropping into harbours by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, brings to mind ships. On protectionism, what is our view of the latest legislation being passed by the EU, which seems to indicate that defence procurement will be from countries remaining in the EU and not go more widely?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is always ingenious at getting defence and ships into every Question. I would need to speak to my Ministry of Defence colleagues for their response to that.
Creative and Cultural Sector: Social Mobility
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of social mobility in the creative and cultural sector, and what steps they are taking to improve it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, culture and creativity are for everyone and are enriched when everyone is able to play their full part in them. As part of our work to promote social mobility in the creative and cultural sectors, we commissioned research from the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre to inform our approach. We have launched the new Discover Creative Careers programme to improve access to creative careers and will set out our approach further in the forthcoming cultural education plan and creative industries sector vision.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply. A recent report looking into social mobility in the creative sector since the 1970s found that there has been shockingly little progress. Last week, in her first speech in the role, the DCMS Secretary of State said about the creative industries that
“we need to work together to give people the right skills and awareness from a young age”.
Does the Minister agree? Does he agree with Minister Julia Lopez that the problem is a disconnect between education provision and the jobs being created? We need no more labelling of creative courses as “low value” and more emphasis and support for creative subjects and career information. Will the Minister get his own Government, and most importantly the Department for Education, to listen to fellow Ministers and act on this as a key part of encouraging social mobility in this sector?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is right to point to recent research, which shows that this is a long-standing problem afflicting more than just our nation. That is why DCMS commissioned the report I mentioned from the policy and evidence centre in 2021. It pointed to a number of levers, particularly ensuring fair and equal access to cultural activities in early life and using education as a leveller. We are taking those forward through our work on the cultural education plan with the Department for Education. I am seeing the Schools Minister, Nick Gibb, about it tomorrow, and am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, has agreed to chair the panel informing it. We are also supporting the take-up and provision of a broad range of post-16 vocational routes, such as T-levels and boot camps, and support the free schools led by industry, such as the BRIT School and the London Screen Academy, which are doing excellent work in this area.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a freelance television producer. One of the biggest problems facing freelancers, who make up a third of the creative industries, is late payment. The Communications Committee, in its inquiry into the future of journalism, called for the Small Business Commissioner to be given powers to sort out unfair payment practices for freelancers. Unfortunately, at the moment she cannot deal with complaints to companies that employ fewer than 50 people, which includes the vast majority of creative industry companies. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government intend to extend her powers in this area?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I shall take that issue up with colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade, but the noble Viscount is right to point to the large number of freelancers and small and medium-sized enterprises that make up our creative industries and cultural sector, and to the need to ensure that they are paid in a timely way for the important work they do.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if we were to look at who is performing on our stage and screen at the moment, we might think there was not a problem? There is an enormous and very encouraging degree of diversity across the whole range of performing arts, but there is no such equal diversity in the necessary supporting skills and trades. Does he further agree that this is partly because schools themselves—he touched on this in his earlier reply—are insufficiently encouraged to understand the range of options open to people with all kinds of skills to work in the creative industries, including technical, digital and craft skills?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right: many exciting job opportunities are open to people in the creative industries and the cultural sector, backstage and off-screen. Because film and television were supported to open up more quickly than live performing arts, a lot of people have switched between those parts of the sector. I mentioned the Discover Creative Careers programme, which Julia Lopez launched last month. That will provide £1 million over three years to give young people in 77 targeted areas across England better career provision, letting them know about the exciting job opportunities on offer so that we can fill those skills gaps and get people into the sector.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend’s department gives many grants to the sector. Can he outline what conditions are put on those grants, particularly for work experience and internships, so that those who maybe do not live in London or near a major city, or who do not have parents who can support them, can access work experience and internships?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As my noble friend knows, we have ensured that the Arts Council, which distributes a lot of taxpayer subsidy to arts and culture, does so more fairly across the whole country, bringing opportunities and high-quality cultural provision close to people’s doorsteps. Since 2018, the Arts Council has asked national portfolio organisations, as it calls them, to provide data on the socioeconomic background of their permanent staff. We have asked them to take the socioeconomic background of the people involved into account so that we can make sure that everybody is able to enjoy the opportunities that that affords.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, returning to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, there is a crisis here. According to ONS data from researchers at the universities of Manchester, Edinburgh and Sheffield, the number of creative workers from working-class backgrounds has halved since the 1970s—my generation, if you like—and the chances of children from middle-class backgrounds getting a job in the cultural sector are four times greater than for those from working-class backgrounds. Does the Minister share my concern that this affects not only who portrays the characters but the stories and narratives seen by the wider public? What work is the department doing with the Social Mobility Commission in this area, and what additional resources can it give the commission to help it change the class basis of our arts?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right: culture and creativity are enriched when as broad a range of people as possible are part of telling stories and sharing perspectives. That is why we commissioned the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre to do the report that I mentioned. We have also commissioned an external evidence review to identify interventions that can help. I have mentioned the work we are taking forward through the cultural education plan and the creative industries sector vision, so there is work for us to do. The point he makes about the Social Mobility Commission is a good one, and I will follow it up with colleagues.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, opportunities begin with education but as headteachers and educationalists point out, the reality is that arts subjects are now woefully underfunded, certainly compared to private schools, as well as being actively discouraged by the EBacc. What plans do the Government have to address this? Otherwise, the arts and creative industries will become accessible only to the privileged few—and yes, this is something that DCMS and the DfE need to bang their heads together about.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Absolutely, and I am very happy to bang those heads. One of the key aims of the cultural education plan is to tackle disparities in opportunity and outcome, and to identify schools across the state and private sectors that are doing good work, while ensuring that everybody, wherever they live, has the life-changing opportunity to take part in arts and culture.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, while the Minister is banging heads and meeting his right honourable friend the Schools Minister tomorrow, will he please raise the issue of musical education in schools? It is harder now for schoolchildren in inner-city schools and state schools to access musical instruments than it was 50 years ago when I was at a grammar school on a council estate in Hertfordshire. That really is a scandal.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will, but my right honourable friend the Schools Minister and I would both point to the £25 million of capital investment that accompanied the national plan for music education, informed by my noble friend Lady Fleet and others, and that ensured greater provision of musical instruments, particularly adaptable instruments for pupils with special educational needs. We wanted to make sure that every barrier to participation in arts, music and culture was removed.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, it must warm the Minister’s heart to hear his Secretary of State say that we should use the creative industries to drive growth in every corner of the UK. However, we have seen a 30% decline in the last 10 years in revenue funding coming from local authorities. How can we make up this shortfall? Furthermore, does he not think that the dreadful EBacc is stifling advancement in the creative industries?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am indeed keen to see growth in every part of the country. The creative industries have been growing more than twice as quickly as the rest of the economy in terms of GVA, and since 2011 employment in the sector has increased more than five times faster than the rest of the economy. There are therefore huge opportunities for people in every part of the country, and we want to see more of these jobs, which are enriching in every sense. The noble Lord is right to point to the important role played by local government. We work closely with the Local Government Association, which recently produced an excellent report on cultural provision, highlighting the important role it plays. Of course, the Government, through things like the levelling up fund, the towns fund and the UK shared prosperity fund, are ensuring that investment is there to encourage it.
Myanmar: Health Workers
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Crisp
To ask His Majesty’s Government what support they are providing for health workers in Myanmar who are caring for patients outside the areas controlled by the military government of that country.
Lord Crisp (CB)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in doing so, I declare an interest as patron of THET, the Tropical Health and Education Trust.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, Myanmar’s public healthcare system has been in crisis since the coup. We are concerned about Myanmar’s level of basic healthcare services and childhood immunisation rates. The UK is a leading donor on supporting healthcare needs in that country. This financial year, the UK has provided £13.95 million for healthcare in Myanmar, which is being delivered by the UN, by civil society and by ethnic healthcare organisations. This support is saving the lives of vulnerable women and children.
Lord Crisp (CB)
I thank the Minister for that response. I agree that the situation in Myanmar two years after the coup is truly appalling. I pay tribute to the UK Government’s efforts, including their efforts at the Security Council to keep up pressure on the country. There are many courageous health workers in the parts of the country that are not controlled by the military who are providing health services where and how they can from makeshift facilities, and they are being targeted by the military as a result. They are being excellently supported by UK and UK-based Burmese clinicians with education, training, advice, some supplies and more, largely over the internet. However, this is problematic because it is very largely controlled by the Government.
I have two immediate questions. I understand that Professor Zaw Wai Soe, the Health Minister of the National Unity Government, has asked the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, if the UK can help by providing access to satellites. Can the Minister tell the House what progress is being made with this and when a response can be expected? Would he be willing to meet representatives of the UK and the UK-based Burmese clinicians in this country to discuss the situation, and what further practical action can be taken?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, for obvious reasons, humanitarian access is extremely challenging, with many areas cut off completely to the UN and international NGOs. That is why our approach has been targeted at using and working with domestic organisations of the sort that the noble Lord has cited. The problem with that, as he knows, is that healthcare workers affiliated in any way with the civil disobedience movement are targeted. According to the World Health Organization, at least 51 healthcare workers have been killed and 352 attacked since the coup, and the Tropical Health and Education Trust, which the noble Lord is part of, reports that 624 healthcare workers remain in arbitrary detention. I am afraid I do not know the answer about progress on satellites, but I will ask my noble friend Lord Ahmad, in whose portfolio this sits, and if he is not able to meet representatives then I will certainly happily do so.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, since Security Council Resolution 2669, we have seen 2 million children in need of a targeted immunisation catch-up programme and 3,000 people having died at the hands of the military coup. Does the Minister agree with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, that the crisis will not end until those responsible are held to account? Will the Minister ensure that we pursue that strongly at the United Nations?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord and with the UN. He will know that in December last year the UN Security Council passed the first ever resolution on the situation in Myanmar, and that was led by the UK. The resolution demands an end to violence and urges immediate action by the military regime to fully implement the ASEAN five-point consensus and release everyone who has been arbitrarily detained. However, we are not going to see change until we see change at the very top. The noble Lord is right to make that point, and it is of course a priority for the UK.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on Burma and the Rohingya. I want to take the Minister back to what he has just said about levels of access and the request from my noble friend Lord Crisp about meeting some of those who are involved in these issues, specifically in this case Burma Campaign UK, in order to address their concerns about the level of reporting that is required for the receipt of international humanitarian aid, which they say is wholly unrealistic and simply not feasible in a conflict zone. They say that people are dying because of the red tape. Can we look again at how to utilise local civil society organisations, as referred to by the Minister a moment ago, which are indeed best placed to get aid to those who need it? They say that, among Burma’s ethnic minorities and the 2 million displaced since the military coup, a humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, it is without doubt a humanitarian catastrophe. Myanmar is the Indo-Pacific’s most desperate humanitarian crisis. Some 17.6 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance and over 1.6 million have been displaced, including over 500,000 children. Some 15 million people are considered moderately or severely food insecure, and 7.8 million children remain out of school. So the noble Lord is right. The difficulty, as I mentioned earlier, is access. When dealing with a regime of the sort that runs that country, access to the grass roots is very difficult. So we have a twin approach: first, we work through channels such as the UN and ASEAN to push for greater humanitarian access and, secondly, we increasingly support local civil society networks with access to vulnerable communities to be the first responders to the crisis. That has ensured that UK aid is reaching the most remote and hard-to-reach areas, but it is difficult.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, the Burmese diaspora are working closely with NHS colleagues in delivering clinical education and training. Their time and expertise are gifted free of charge and supported by modest FCDO funds, which allow organisations such as the Tropical Health and Education Trust to organise and structure this support in a professional way. Could the Minister comment on whether he sees any scope for increasing those funds for UK health communities in their response to Myanmar?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I will reiterate the point I made. We applaud the Myanmar health professionals who are risking their lives to continue treating patients. We commend the NHS volunteers who are sharing their skills and knowledge with colleagues and friends in Myanmar, taking huge risks in doing so. I absolutely pay tribute to them. Since the coup, we have provided around £100 million to support those in need of humanitarian assistance, to deliver healthcare and education for the most vulnerable and to protect civic space. In 2021-22, we provided nearly £50 million in aid to Myanmar, including £24 million of life-saving assistance for 600,000 people. I am not in a position to comment on future expenditure, but I think it is very clear from our recent track record that this remains a priority focus for the FCDO.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, as I started to say earlier, the attack on health workers and health support workers is deeply reprehensible and I support the Government’s actions, including the sanctions. The operation of a parallel health system by health workers to provide much-needed support for children could be a model in other countries, such as Syria and Afghanistan, where we do not recognise the regimes. When the Minister is considering the right reverend Prelate’s question regarding UK government support, can that support include those seeking to offer vital health support in Syria and Afghanistan, where we do not recognise the regime?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point, and I will make sure that that suggestion is conveyed to relevant Ministers and officials. I will add that, according to the World Health Organization, one-third of all attacks on health workers around the world have occurred in Myanmar. This is a real problem. I think the approach adopted in that country by the international community has worked and, like the noble Lord, I do not see any reason why it would not in other areas where we do not recognise the regime.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour Benches.
Baroness Nye (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of Burma Campaign UK. The Minister will know that, since the coup in 2021, the military has brutally suppressed its critics and unlawfully attacked civilians on the ground and from the air, including many health workers working in the ethnic areas. While the UK and EU-imposed sanctions on aviation fuel are welcome, will the Minister give assurances that he will keep those sanctions under urgent review as companies change names to avoid sanctions, and look into whether British companies are involved in the provision of third-party services to vessels involved in the shipment of aviation fuel to Myanmar, such as insurance, shipping or financial services? Stopping the military’s relentless bombing campaign on innocent civilians will help those providing humanitarian aid.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The Government always keep their sanctions policy under review. We are considering a range of further targets and other measures to hold the suppressive, brutal regime to account. It is vital that any sanctions imposed have the desired effect of denying the regime credibility and reducing its access to finance, arms and equipment. Part of that is to tackle the problem identified by the noble Baroness—the use of aviation fuel to facilitate bombing campaigns. That is a focus of the FCDO when it comes to looking at the appropriate sanctions.
Windsor Framework
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
To ask His Majesty’s Government which EU laws will be disapplied as a result of the Windsor Framework.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, the Windsor Framework disapplies swathes of EU law in Northern Ireland—too much to list here in full. We have published a full range of legal texts that underpin this new agreement. It completely carves out whole areas of EU law on issues such as VAT, medicines and food, in a way that the EU has never done before. It means that it is UK laws and standards that apply, and the UK Parliament that decides what those rules should be.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that reply, I think, although he has not answered the Question. I would be grateful if he could commit to writing to me with, or putting in the Library, a list of the actual laws and regulations that have been disapplied, and not generalities. If they know that it is 1,700 pages, and swathes, they must have the list of laws and regulations. In not publishing them, I fear that they are running into the danger of allowing people to think that the reason that they are not publishing the list is that the vast bulk of the laws in annexe 2 of the protocol, which apply the single market and customs union rules of the EU to Northern Ireland without consent, will remain, and that the Stormont brake—such as it is, with all of its defects—does not apply to them.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for his supplementary. I do apologise that I cannot give him a definitive number at this stage. He will appreciate that I am not an expert in EU law, and I have no intention of becoming one, but my understanding is that the situation is somewhat more complex than just adding together a list. There will of course be some directives that are in part still applied, in respect, for example, of the red channel, and disapplied in respect of the green channel. But I can assure him that, for example, with annexe 1 of the EU regulations covering SPS rules to accommodate Northern Ireland—I have it here—67 EU rules are now disapplied. I will take back what he said about trying to publish a definitive list, but, as I say, the situation is slightly more complicated than just adding together one list.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, shall we hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and then from my noble friend Lord Hailsham?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, how much of the legislation attached to the Windsor Framework has been written? What is the process for its drafting. Will the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland parties be consulted? Have any of them already been consulted regarding the drafting?
Lord Caine (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. She will be aware that the legislation is still being drafted. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State spoke to Northern Ireland parties over the weekend, officials engaged with Northern Ireland parties yesterday and there will be more such engagement from my right honourable friend and officials later this week. That process is ongoing and we do wish to bring forward the required legislation as soon as necessary. The noble Baroness mentioned the role of the Irish Government; of course, we keep in close contact with the Irish Government, but I think it is very important that we observe the constitutional proprieties on this matter, given that these are strand 1 issues and internal to the United Kingdom Parliament.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, in welcoming the framework agreement, may I say to my noble friend that this shows what can be achieved when the principal negotiators are masters of detail, are willing to compromise and have a reputation for honesty and straight dealing—and that is a lesson that should be learned by previous negotiators?
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend; I cannot imagine what possible point he is trying to make with his question, but I can assure him that the attributes he set out are all ones that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has in spades.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that what businesses in Northern Ireland need now is stability and the ability to plan? Does he further agree that, while it is reasonable to allow all parties, including the DUP, time to examine the Windsor deal in detail, it is not reasonable to allow one party to continue to block progress indefinitely?
Lord Caine (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. She is absolutely right that Northern Ireland needs stability and certainty. As I said in response to a Question last week, for those of us who passionately believe in the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom, restoring the institutions and having political stability in Northern Ireland, and building a Northern Ireland that works for all parts of the community, is the surest foundation for strengthening the United Kingdom.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the fact that the DUP has set up a panel to look at the issues around the framework. I hope it will be looking at what it can deliver for Northern Ireland. I hope the Minister can confirm that the Government will fully co-operate with that process, working with the panel. I also say to your Lordships—this is a point that the Minister himself just made—that there is not really a perfect solution to the position we are in. What we want to do is get the best outcomes for Northern Ireland and for the UK. I have to say that I hope that the DUP will conclude that it can go back into the Assembly and Executive, because the only way to truly address the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland is to have a fully functioning Executive and Assembly. So I look forward to the outcome of the panel’s responses and I hope it will recognise the effort that has gone into achieving this agreement.
Lord Caine (Con)
Well, I appreciate very much the comments of the noble Baroness and the tone with which she expressed them. Of course, we all hugely desire the restoration of the political institutions at the earliest opportunity, not least as we approach the 25th anniversary of the Belfast agreement, which the party opposite negotiated in government. On the panel, that is of course a matter for the Democratic Unionist Party. The Government are committed to working with all parties to take this process forward. Where there is a need for official technical briefings, we are quite prepared to provide those and, as I say, we will work with all parties to take this forward.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, last week Maroš Šefčovič told his MEPs that the European Court still reigns supreme over Northern Ireland, despite what the British Prime Minister said. He also said that the framework was designed in a way to avoid hostile headlines in the British press, and that the Stormont brake is very much limited in scope and under very strict conditions. Does the Minister accept that the truth about the framework agreement is now out, and it shows that the Prime Minister has hugely oversold it as a triumph, when in fact it is a small tinkering with the methods of delivering the very same protocol that has done so much damage to Northern Ireland?
Lord Caine (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. I am afraid that I have to disagree rather fundamentally with her characterisation of the agreement negotiated by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and others, which I regard as a very considerable improvement in all respects on the existing protocol. In respect of a number of issues that she raised, the Windsor Framework will allow for the free flow of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it will underpin Northern Ireland’s position within our United Kingdom, and the Stormont brake will give the United Kingdom Government a sovereign veto over new legislation within the scope of the protocol.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is quite clear that this brilliant achievement by the Prime Minister deserves widespread support. Would my noble friend not agree that those who wish to serve the people of Northern Ireland would do far better to recognise that this is the best that they will ever get and to make it work?
Lord Caine (Con)
I could hardly agree more with my noble friend.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Windsor Framework is not merely about Northern Ireland? It has potentially profound implications for the rest of the United Kingdom as well. Paragraph 52 of the Command Paper reads that
“the Office of the Internal Market (OIM) will specifically monitor any impacts for Northern Ireland arising from relevant future regulatory changes”.
Could my noble friend say what the purpose of that is, and what weight the Government are going to give to the results of such monitoring?
Lord Caine (Con)
The purpose, as I understand it, is to ensure that any proposals for divergence can be managed in a way that is consistent with the integrity of the United Kingdom internal market, which is incredibly important for Northern Ireland and for the rest of the United Kingdom. My noble friend refers to Great Britain, and of course the deal is not just good for Northern Ireland; it is good for businesses in Great Britain that have had trouble supplying the Northern Ireland market, including friends of mine and Members of this House, such as my noble friend Lord Taylor, who I think is not in his place. There have been a number of problems with trade from GB to NI, which this agreement, a brilliant achievement by the Prime Minister, will help to remedy.
Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill
Tuesday 7th March 2023
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2023 View all Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 6 March 2023 - (6 Mar 2023)
Horticultural Sector Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Moved by
Horticultural Sector Committee
That Lord Watson of Wyre Forest be appointed a member of the Select Committee.
Liaison Committee
That Lord Bach be appointed a member of the Select Committee.
Statutory Instruments Committee
That Baroness Sater be appointed a member of the Select Committee.
Motions agreed.
Civil Service Impartiality
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, we have heard a lot of nonsense on this over the past few days. Over many years, Sue Gray has been praised by Ministers from all parties for her abilities and her impartiality. She is not unique in being offered a political role on leaving the Civil Service. For example, noble Lords will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, left the diplomatic service to be a political advisor to the then Foreign Secretary before becoming a Minister in your Lordship’s House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
We have had a lot of heckling—I think we are getting a bit bad-tempered in the Chamber these days. I am happy to repeat what I said, in case anyone missed it.
It is not without precedent that a senior civil servant is offered a political role on leaving the Civil Service, but Sue Gray is certainly the first to be attacked in this way. She has had such a distinguished career, and I am appalled that some now impugn her integrity for the time that she served successive Governments. Surely we should welcome that the leader of His Majesty’s Official Opposition, in preparing for government, wants to employ someone with such impeccable credentials and integrity—or perhaps those kicking up a fuss just fear the appointment.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
I will set out the facts from a slightly different perspective. Sue Gray, formerly Second Permanent Secretary at DLUHC and at the Cabinet Office, resigned from the Civil Service on Thursday. This resignation was accepted with immediate effect. Because it was unique—and I would say unprecedented—for a serving Permanent Secretary to resign to seek to take up a very senior position, that of Chief of Staff working for the leader of the Opposition, we are looking into the circumstances leading up to her resignation. However, it is incumbent on the office of the leader of the Opposition to be much more forthcoming about the details of what discussions were involved and the timing of those discussions so that we are able to complete our fact-finding exercise.
Ministers must be able to speak to their officials from a position of absolute trust. It is the responsibility of everyone in this House to preserve and support the impartiality of the Civil Service, and this step does the opposite.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, the Minister sometimes refers to the fact that at one time she used to work for me when she was a professional civil servant in the Cabinet Office. Does she agree that the appointment of Sue Gray to give professional assistance to the Opposition in preparing for the possibility of government throws no more doubt on the impartiality of the Civil Service than the noble Baroness’s very welcome presence on the Conservative Front Bench?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I do not like to comment on individual cases.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
But, in my own case, I left to go to Tesco, where I served for 15 years. I then took a different path. I served as a civil servant with due impartiality and indeed confidentiality of everything that I did and learned there, and that will be a requirement for Ms Gray.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the husband of a former civil servant and the father of a civil servant. To repeat what William Wragg, the chairman of PACAC, said in the debate yesterday in the Commons:
“It is important to ask”
the Minister
“whether he shares my concern that it is wrong to impugn an entire civil service for political bias, and that it is important that he asserts that from the Dispatch Box”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/3/23; col. 26]
Is that not the most important thing for a Minister to do? As for the current concern, this was a leak by Sky News. I would have thought that we were all interested in ensuring that, if there is a change of Government after the next election, it is competently prepared and served. After the relative chaos we have had over the past five years, of too many Ministers moving too quickly, with some members of the Government deeply suspicious of the Civil Service all the way through, should we not welcome this achievement?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
It is for the Civil Service of the day to prepare for Governments, as I remember doing in 1997, with three lots of policies. It is very important that ACOBA looks at this appointment. The business appointment rules govern the process by which civil servants take up new employment—it is part of their contract. As my right honourable friend the Paymaster-General said in the other place, there are various sets of rules and guidance designed to make sure that impartiality is observed in the Civil Service, particularly with the movement of senior Ministers or civil servants into other jobs.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, it important to see impartiality in our Civil Service, which is judged throughout the world as the finest—arguably until Thursday—but precedents are just as important. The noble Baroness opposite said that one precedent was my noble friend Lord Frost. He was a special adviser—a political post—for five years and was also in the House of Lords before he took up a post as a Minister, so that is not a precedent. Last Thursday, a Second Permanent Secretary who was at the heart of this Government and of policy, and who advised government officials, turned over and took a political post without any break in contract. For me, that is completely different. Does my noble friend, who has Civil Service experience, agree that this move is simply without precedent?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I agree that it is both unusual and without precedent, and I agree that Ministers must be able to speak to their officials from a position of trust. As the Cabinet Office Minister, I have worked closely with Ms Gray two or three times a week. My noble friend is right and asks a legitimate question.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that people like me worked with Sue Gray in government, and that she knew a lot about our Government, but that did not stop her acting impartially when the election brought in a different Government? The Minister cannot continue to imply that, because people are prepared to work for the leader of the Opposition, they suddenly lose their integrity and are unable to act impartially. Will she now admit to the number of people who have left the Civil Service because their impartiality has been impugned, and particularly how a past Prime Minister behaved towards them and the House of Commons in particular?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
That is a completely different scenario. Ms Gray will work for the leader of the Opposition, which is a political post that she is moving straight into from the very top of Whitehall. That is why we have rules and guidance. I am surprised by the response from the party opposite: I would have thought that it would want to get on and explain what she talked about with the leader of the Opposition and what else she was doing at the same time. This seems to me to be quite different from some of the other cases that have been mentioned.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Butler, I remember a number of examples of people moving from the Civil Service to political positions, in particular my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon. He was a very successful director-general at the Treasury, who moved to become Gordon Brown’s ambassador to the City; he then resigned and turned up the next day as an adviser to George Osborne. Surely the issue is about the ACOBA rules, which are all too often not observed by members of the Government. Does the Minister agree that, so long as Ms Gray follows the recommendations for an adequate cooling-off period, which I would assume would be somewhere between three and six months, she is pursuing the right and honourable course?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Ms Gray does indeed need to apply to ACOBA, which she has not yet done. Her post is a very senior post of a political kind, and I am sure that ACOBA will look extremely carefully at the move and lay down appropriate rules and guidance for her departure from the Civil Service.
National Security Bill
Tuesday 7th March 2023
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Security Act 2023 View all National Security Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 88-II(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (6 Mar 2023)
17:20 - Division on Amendment 185 - Ayes: 93 / Noes: 197 - Amendment 185 disagreed.
17:33 - Division on Amendment 188A - Ayes: 146 / Noes: 211 - Amendment 188A disagreed.
18:21 - Division on Amendment 193 - Ayes: 210 / Noes: 184 - Amendment 193 agreed.
19:06 - Division on Amendment 195 - Ayes: 132 / Noes: 180 - Amendment 195 disagreed.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with Lord Sharpe’s other amendments to Clause 64 relating to relevant activities, allow the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying which activities of a specified person are subject to the provisions about foreign activity arrangements.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group clarify the intent of the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme —FIRS. They ensure the tier remains proportionate, while achieving its national security objectives. FIRS was recommended by the ISC in its 2020 Russia report, and the Government committed in their response to bring forward such a scheme.
The enhanced tier of FIRS is a targeted regime, allowing the Secretary of State to require the registration of arrangements with specified foreign Governments or entities subject to foreign power control where she believes it is necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. The scheme will play a significant role in the deterrence and disruption of state threats activities by those countries, and entities linked to them, which are of greatest concern.
We know that these states will make use of a whole-of-state approach to covert activities, not just relying on traditional routes of intelligence organisations and undeclared agents. FIRS will be essential to gaining a greater understanding of the scale and nature of activity being undertaken for countries and their proxies that pose the greatest risks to UK interests and national security. The penalties for non-compliance will increase the risk to those who seek to engage in covert activities for specified foreign powers, either directly or through specified entities. It forces them to choose between registering openly or facing prosecution should their activities be known to the intelligence community. Finally, it offers potential for earlier disruption of state threats activity, where there is evidence of a covert arrangement between a person and specified foreign power or entity, but it is not yet feasible to bring charges for a more serious state threats offence.
Government Amendments 89 and 100 make clearer that the Secretary of State can narrow the activities requiring registration under this tier. This will allow us to tailor the registration requirements to the threat posed by the country or entity being specified.
I turn now to government Amendments 95, 104, 125 and 133 and supporting amendments. These amendments make changes to ensure that a proper provision is made for offences committed by those in unregistered arrangements, and employees and subcontractors who are carrying out activities under those arrangements, in both tiers of the scheme. The Government do not wish to unfairly criminalise those who reasonably believe an arrangement is registered and have taken all reasonably practicable steps to check that it is. This is particularly the case with employees of an entity which has made an arrangement with a foreign power or specified person, or for subcontractors carrying out activities under arrangements.
These amendments seek to address this issue by enabling a person—for example, an employee—to avoid committing an offence where they can demonstrate that they took all steps reasonably practicable to determine whether the activities were registered, and they reasonably believed that the activities were registered. We consider that in practice this will mean checking the public register or receiving evidence of registration from their employer in the form of confirmation from the registration portal.
Finally, government Amendments 147 and 151 also modify the individuals to whom an information notice may be issued under both tiers of FIRS. There are circumstances where a person may be arranging for another individual to carry out the activity. In these circumstances, it is important for the Secretary of State to be able to issue an information notice to an individual whom they reasonably believe is carrying out an activity pursuant to a registerable arrangement, even if they are not the person who has made the arrangement.
I have considerable sympathy with the aims of Amendment 91, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. Wherever possible, Governments should strive to share what they know to reduce the regulatory burden on ordinary people and businesses. However, I believe that the schemes he has listed have different purposes and requirements, with relatively little overlap. Where there is a risk of unnecessary duplication, registration requirements can be targeted to avoid this.
Amendment 106, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, seeks to require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the impacts of the enhanced tier, including on international research collaborations. Again, I seek to reassure the noble Lord on this point, as the Government will keep the impacts of the scheme under review.
Amendments 166B and 203A, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, seek to require the Secretary of State to produce guidance within six months of the Act passing, and to prevent regulations made under the scheme being brought into force until three months after the publication of the guidance. Again, I agree with the spirit in which this amendment has been made but, as I will seek to reassure noble Lords, the Government have already committed to producing guidance during the implementation period, prior to bringing the scheme into force.
I come to Amendment 154A in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Carlile. This contains reasonable points which would bring certainty to the provisions and the Government support it.
I hope noble Lords will support these amendments.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 91 and 106, which the Minister has mentioned. In this case, I speak very much on behalf of the academic and policy research communities, with which I was professionally engaged for some 40 or more years.
We are concerned not to impose too great a burden on those who are engaged in international research. The Minister will be very well aware of the commitments that have already been made for researchers engaged in international co-operation to provide information to the Government, and the concerns that there have already been, particularly about collaboration with countries such as China and Russia. That information is provided to government, and I remind the Minister that, as a member of a Government who are strongly against adding to bureaucracy and red tape, it should be possible for government departments to share information, rather than require it to be given twice to different departments.
I am conscious that the Home Office has a poor record in this regard; indeed, the entire Windrush affair happened because the Home Office refused to ask other departments for information on whether or not the people concerned had been in this country. This was clearly available at the DVLA, the Department of Health, the national insurance scheme, et cetera. There is a real problem in government about asking for the same information twice. The information asked for indeed overlaps, and I ask the Minister to assure us that the Government will look at this matter again and do their best to make sure that it does not add to the burdens to which those of us who are concerned with international co-operation have to relate.
The Minister will be well aware that the Government are also negotiating to rejoin the Horizon European international collaboration scheme for science, probably the most impressive and important network for international co-operation in the world. All the members of the European Union and the various other countries associated with it are listed as foreign powers, with the exception of Ireland, so this is a live question. I declare an interest: my son, a scientist at the University of Edinburgh, is currently engaged in international co-operation with universities and research institutes—one or two of them government-sponsored and financed—in France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United States. That is a small snapshot of the extent of that collaboration, if one were to go merely to the biology faculty at the University of Edinburgh. I suspect that there are some 30 or 40 other countries with which 100 scientists at the university are involved in various collaborative activities.
The purpose of Amendment 106 is to gain the strongest assurances from the Government that they will look at whether additional burdens are being imposed by the legislation on those who are unavoidably and actively—and desirably—engaged in international collaboration with institutes, universities and other bodies that are part of, or dependent on, foreign Governments in one way or another. We need active assurance on that. If the Minister is able to give that, we will not press these amendments further but I emphasise that it is important that this legislation does not over-add to the requirements to report normal activities. I remind the Minister that we are talking about a country that is determined to become a science international superpower, and that needs to be sure that it does not put obstacles in its own way that deter those in other counties from collaborating as it ensures its security.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response to the amendments I tabled, supported by my noble friend, on the need for the publication of timely guidance on how the schemes will operate. He has been true to his word from the first day of Report and taken away many of the issues raised in Committee and come back with a number of amendments to address them. They relate mainly to the next group and the political tier but, given that my amendments fall within this group, I wish to put on record how grateful I am to him for the way in which he has engaged and responded.
The government amendments have addressed many of the significant concerns of those seeking legitimate activity—I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who raised the issue of economic activity, is in her place—and those concerned about human rights. The areas where some questions remain include those we raised on the first day of Report, such as the German Stiftungen and other organisations that will not fall within the scope of the FIR schemes but are nevertheless concerned that they may do so. Much of that will be resolved in the guidance provided to them and therefore, the timeliness of that is of utmost importance.
In Committee I quoted at length from the Government’s impact assessment of the Bill, which suggested that the initial scheme could cost up to £48 million and many thousands of people would have to be informed about the scheme’s operation. Given that it is to be welcomed that the Government have reduced the scope of that, I am not sure what status the impact assessment now has. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister told us whether the guidance to be provided will also be informed by some revision of the impact assessment.
There will be businesses wanting to carry out legitimate activity that have to operate under a set of rules in the current regulations on countries at risk of money laundering or financing terrorism—we have a list of over 30 such countries—and there may now be an enhanced tier under FIRS. There will also be others, making it quite a complex environment for businesses operating in the political sphere.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the enhanced tier of FIRS requires the registration of arrangements to carry out any activity in the UK, or for future activities to be carried out in the UK, at the direction of a specified foreign power or entity. It also requires activities carried out by specified entities to be registered. I too am grateful for how the Government have responded, following concerns that this tier could deter legitimate activities. The Minister has introduced a series of concessions, as he mentioned in opening, which we welcome. There are outstanding issues, which I would be grateful if he could amplify in his answers.
On his Amendment 106, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, spoke about the need for regular reviews, which may highlight barriers to international collaboration. He gave examples from his family—particularly his son, who is no doubt doing important research work up at Edinburgh University. The purpose of this is to ensure that the enhanced scheme does not make the same mistakes as other schemes around the world. I draw the Australian scheme to the Minister’s attention, which I understand is currently being reviewed, given some high-profile concerns about how it is working. I look forward to his answer.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this short but constructive discussion. I will turn straight to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
Amendment 91 seeks to ensure that registration under FIRS is not required when the arrangement is registered under other legislative requirements. However, somewhat contrary to the noble Lord’s assertion, I think there is a clear difference between FIRS and the National Security and Investment Act, the academic technology approval scheme and the export control regime. The Government are clear that FIRS fills a gap in our toolkit. It is worth highlighting that the focus of this enhanced tier is to provide scrutiny to UK activities directed by specified foreign powers—it is worth emphasising this; we are talking about the enhanced tier—and foreign power-controlled entities.
We consider that there will be limited circumstances where there is a risk of duplication, but we will work closely across government departments and potential registrants to keep the burden of registration to a minimum and inform our approach to using this tier of the scheme. The Government do not want to impose unnecessary burdens. We have committed to a consultation on the guidance ahead of bringing the scheme into force. If that process identifies risks of duplication, the power to target what arrangements and activities will need to be registered can be used to reduce unnecessary duplication. This will be considered on a case-by-case basis when specifying foreign powers and entities.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Can the Minister give us an assurance that he will consult with the academies, the Royal Society and Universities UK to make sure that the element of duplication is reduced to the absolute minimum? When I was in government, we talked about trying to introduce the principle of “Tell us once” when people were in touch with government. In some other areas, that has now been introduced. The principle is a very good one; we do not want universities having to fill in forms unnecessarily widely. If he can assure us that there will be active consultation with those affected, I will not pursue this further.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am happy with the reassurance that we are committed to consulting, but I cannot say at this precise moment who we consult with. As I say, if that process identifies a risk of duplication, the power to target what arrangements and activities need to be registered can be used to reduce unnecessary duplication. Again, I stress that we are talking about the enhanced tier of the FIR scheme in the National Security Bill so, if there is a little bit of duplication, I am sure he will understand that in the context of the overall Bill.
Amendment 106 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the impacts of the enhanced tier; the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, also questioned me on this. I reassure both noble Lords that the Government recognise the importance of keeping the impacts of the scheme under consideration. Clause 82 already requires the Secretary of State to produce and lay before Parliament an annual report every 12 months after the scheme goes live. The legislation will also be subject to the usual post-legislative scrutiny process, which will consider how the scheme has worked in practice and how far its objectives have been met. I therefore ask that the noble Lord does not press this amendment.
Amendments 166B and 203A tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, seek to require the Secretary of State to produce guidance within six months of the Bill passing, and to prevent regulations made under the scheme from being brought into force until three months after the publication of guidance. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I say that the Government recognise the importance of ensuring guidance for the public to support the implementation of the scheme. However, it is important that there are not undue restrictions placed on the development of this guidance, to ensure that the guidance produced is clear and targeted to those complying. I can say to him that a revised impact assessment is required before Royal Assent, so that will be forthcoming. He also raised the point about the German Stiftungen. If he bears with me, we will address this directly in the next group. I will also go further: the Government have committed to establishing expert panels to produce sector-specific guidance on compliance with FIRS. With that, I think I have answered all the questions.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with Lord Sharpe’s other amendments to Clause 64 relating to relevant activities, allow the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying which activities of a specified person are subject to the provisions about foreign activity arrangements.
“(1A) In this section “relevant activities”—(a) if regulations under subsection (1B) apply in relation to the specified person, has the meaning given by the regulations, and(b) otherwise, means all activities.(1B) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about activities which are relevant activities for the purposes of this section, either in relation to all specified persons or in relation to such specified persons as the regulations may provide.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with Lord Sharpe’s other amendments to Clause 64 relating to relevant activities, allow the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying which activities of a specified person are subject to the provisions about foreign activity arrangements.
(a) fails to comply with subsection (2), and(b) knows, or having regard to other matters known to them” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is to ensure consistency with subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 64, which refer to the person who makes the arrangement as “P”. It also clarifies the meaning of “ought reasonably to know”.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(A1) This section applies where a person (“P”) makes a foreign activity arrangement required to be registered under section 64(2).(1) P commits an offence if—(a) P carries out a relevant activity, or arranges for a relevant activity to be carried out, in the United Kingdom pursuant to the arrangement,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment confines the offence in Clause 66(1) to the person who makes a foreign activity arrangement with a specified person.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to Clause 66, page 46, line 13, and clarifies the meaning of “ought reasonably to know”.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the mens rea where P acts pursuant to a foreign activity arrangement.
“(2) A person other than P commits an offence if—(a) the person carries out a relevant activity, or arranges for a relevant activity to be carried out, in the United Kingdom pursuant to the arrangement,(b) the arrangement is not registered, and(c) the person knows, or having regard to other matters known to them ought reasonably to know, that they are acting pursuant to a foreign activity arrangement.(3) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (2) it is a defence to show that the person—(a) took all steps reasonably practicable to determine whether the arrangement was registered, and(b) reasonably believed that the arrangement was registered.(4) A person is taken to have shown a matter mentioned in subsection (3) if—(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.(5) In this section “relevant activity” has the same meaning as in section 64.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the applicable mens rea where a person other than P carries out the activities in question, or arranges for them to be carried out.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with Lord Sharpe’s other amendments to clause 67 relating to relevant activities, allow the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying which activities of a specified person are subject to clause 67.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with Lord Sharpe’s other amendments to Clause 67 relating to relevant activities, allow the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying which activities of a specified person are subject to Clause 67.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with Lord Sharpe’s other amendments to Clause 67 relating to relevant activities, allow the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying which activities of a specified person are subject to Clause 67.
“(3A) In this section “relevant activities”—(a) if regulations under subsection (3B) apply in relation to the specified person, has the meaning given by the regulations, and(b) otherwise, means all activities.(3B) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about activities which are relevant activities for the purposes of this section, either in relation to all specified persons or in relation to such specified persons as the regulations may provide.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with Lord Sharpe’s other amendments to Clause 67 relating to relevant activities, allow the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying which activities of a specified person are subject to Clause 67.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the requirement for knowledge that an activity is not registered from the offence in Clause 67(7). Knowledge of registration is now dealt with in the defence inserted by Lord Sharpe’s amendment to Clause 67, page 47, line 10.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “ought reasonably to know”.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the test for committing an offence under Clause 67.
“(9) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (7) or (8) it is a defence to show that the person—(a) took all steps reasonably practicable to determine whether the activities were registered, and(b) reasonably believed that the activities were registered. (10) A person is taken to have shown a matter mentioned in subsection (9) if—(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides a defence to an offence under Clause 67(7) and (8).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and Lord Sharpe’s other amendment to Clause 68(1) restrict the definition of foreign influence arrangements to arrangements with foreign powers.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the debate about the political tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. I am immensely grateful to the House and others for their expertise and the constructive nature of the debate.
In response to the strength of feeling, this group of amendments refocuses the political tier back on its original intention: the influence of foreign powers over UK democracy. In its revised form, this tier would require registration only where a person is carrying out political influence at the direction of a foreign Government. That bears repeating—only where a person is carrying out political influence at the direction of a foreign Government. To be clear, this will take those being directed by foreign companies, foreign charities or other foreign entities entirely out of scope of the scheme.
I know that there has also been some debate about what it means to be directed by a foreign power. That is a high bar. Its natural meaning is an order or instruction to act. It could be delivered in the language of a request, but only where there is a power relationship between the person and the foreign power which adds an element of control or expectation to the request—for example, through a contract, payment, coercion, or the promise of a future compensation or favourable treatment. It is not enough for a foreign power to fund an activity. Generic requests, joint collaboration, or simply an alignment of views, absent this power relationship, will not meet the test for direction.
As part of this package of amendments, we have made some other changes, which I hope will be welcomed by noble Lords. A person will now have up to 28 days to register an arrangement under the political tier and does not need to register the arrangement before the activity takes place. This will give greater flexibility and ensure that we do not impede spontaneous activity.
We have narrowed the definition of “political influence activity” so that attempts to influence a Member of Parliament or equivalents in the devolved Administrations will require registration only when it is intended to influence them in their capacity as a Member of Parliament. Activity which seeks to influence these individuals in their personal capacity will not be registerable. Amendment 120 makes this clear.
As outlined on the previous group, we have made some minor changes to the offences to ensure that they work properly for subcontractors and that a person will not fall foul of the offence where they have taken all reasonably practicable steps to determine that an arrangement is registered.
I am pleased to say that we have accepted the recommendation by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that regulations detailing the information to be published on the FIRS public register made under Clause 79 should be subject to the affirmative procedure. The public register is a vital element of the scheme. However, we recognise that there will be sensitivities in publishing some information and understand the call for an opportunity to debate this important matter.
I know that your Lordships have been anxious to scrutinise draft regulations under this part of the Bill. Last week, I published two sets of draft regulations setting out what information will be required from registrants and what information will be published. Importantly, these regulations confirm that we will not publish information where there is a risk that doing so would prejudice national security, put an individual’s safety at risk or involve the disclosure of commercially sensitive information. I have placed copies of these indicative regulations in the House Library.
This is accompanied by a government policy statement setting out how we envisage the other delegated powers being used. This includes an example registration form, which I hope noble Lords have found useful in thinking about how the scheme will work.
We are keen for the implementation of this scheme to be as collaborative as possible, which is why we will hold a further public consultation on the guidance required for the scheme prior to commencement. We will also continue to review the scheme and consider any further exemptions necessary to ensure that there is no negative impact on potential inward investment into the UK.
It is important to understand the wider context for FIRS. We are in an era of increased state-based competition. Foreign powers are seeking to influence British democracy to further their own interests, sometimes openly and sometimes covertly.
Foreign influence is not unwelcome. We recognise that Governments around the world seek to influence policies in the UK in a way that benefits their interests. Of course, the UK does the same. This type of influence, when conducted in an open and transparent way, contributes positively, and we recognise the critical role that this expertise plays in enhancing policy-making, employment and wealth creation. However, when foreign powers seek to influence in a way that is not transparent, this can have serious implications for the UK, posing risk to our open system of government and risking erosion of public confidence in political and government institutions.
We need to be more vigilant about this risk. Currently, foreign Governments can use others as proxies to attempt to influence British Ministers, MPs, officials, or indeed shape British public opinion, with only a limited requirement to disclose the hidden hand behind this influence, and no sanction if discovered. It is not unreasonable to aspire to a greater understanding of foreign influence; for the Government, parliamentarians and wider public to know where this influence is being brought to bear. FIRS seeks to address this gap, providing us all with more information about the scale and nature of foreign political influence in the UK. I look forward to the debate on the amended provisions and addressing the amendments that have been tabled.
Finally, I make noble Lords aware that we have identified an inconsistency in the treatment of ministerial decisions taken across the devolved Administrations that fall within the scope of this tier. I commit to tabling an amendment at Third Reading that will resolve that issue. For now, I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I have my name on a number of amendments in this group. I will start by saying, which I had not prepared to say, that when the Minister looks at the speech he has just made, I think he will find that there were some drafting errors—I hope there were—at the beginning. He said that FIRS would apply now only to a foreign Government. I think he said that twice and afterwards went on to talk about a foreign power. He knows very well why I pick up on the difference because one of my ongoing concerns is about the definition of a foreign power, which includes political parties. I hope that was just an oversight because I think that this captures political parties as well as foreign Governments.
There are two or three points I want to make very briefly but before I go on, I want to add my thanks for what the Minister has done, not only in the incredible change. The Minister has sent me the Keeling schedule that shows that we have ended up with a FIRS that is very different from what we started with. I should declare my interest, as I sit on the board of the ABI and it is very content with where we have got to. It did however make the point that this is no way to make a sausage—I have to say that they were not its words; it was far more polite. The way it started was not the best way to make legislation. The ABI and others are very content with where we have got to, and it is right to record that we have ended up with something very different, so I thank the Minister.
My name is on three amendments. I will not press Amendments 114 and 121 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. But on Amendment 115 I am second to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and I think it is an indication of the approval of what he has done that one of the delete clause amendments is in his name—only because he got there first because I was about to do that. I think it is a symbol that we do it.
I have that one remaining query about a foreign political power that happens to be in government engaging with any of us or councillors or parliamentary candidates, even on internal, party-to-party issues, using an intermediary such as the conference arrangement. I have looked at the draft regulations again as the Minister helpfully said. There is no de minimis there, even if they pay £1,000 to a conference organiser to book the stall at a Labour Party conference or a Tory Party conference—I am sure they have stalls; I have been to their conference and they do in the same way as we do. There is no de minimis for a political party abroad seeking to engage with a political party or anyone else here using an intermediary which is simply a facilitator. Therefore, I wonder whether there is a possibility of looking at the guidelines or the forms. There will be a contract. It may be only for £1,000 but there are the implications of having all that to be declared. I am not saying that simply because we have stalls at our conference, it could happen to the Government as well. It captures things that I know the Minister never intended. I know that at the moment he will not give me an answer and a promise written in blood, but some acknowledgement that there is a small ongoing problem would be very helpful. For the moment, I think we have ended up in a much better place than we started.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 166A in my name. I also thank the Minister for the way in which the Bill has been discussed and amended between Second Reading, Committee and Report. It is a model of the way in which the Lords should operate, and we all appreciate the way in which the Minister and his team have responded to reasoned criticisms as we have moved forward.
Amendment 166A merely draws attention to some of the definition problems we have all struggled with, wanting to catch all the problems but not to overload the necessary and highly desirable international co-operation with other Governments and other countries, many of which are governed in ways we do not entirely approve of. As somebody who used to work for an international think tank, I am particularly concerned with the opacity of the funding of some of our political think tanks, which as charities do not have to declare their revenue.
In the United States there is much concern with the extent to which some foreign Governments, in particular the Gulf states, put enormous amounts of money into institutes operating as political think tanks, intending to influence and therefore reshape the American political debate. Although that is outside the scope of the current Bill, I and others are much concerned to insist that there should be much greater transparency about the funding of think tanks that set out to deliberately influence the way in which our politics take place.
That is an example, but we all know that there will be a substantial grey area between direction and influence, which we and the Minister have all grappled with. We are not entirely sure that we can draw the line clearly as we go. This amendment asks the Government actively to keep under review and to consult on where that line needs to be adjusted as we move forward in implementation. I hope the Minister will respond in that way.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I got involved in Committee—my only appearance on the Bill—because of concerns brought to my attention about the impact of the registration scheme on huge swathes of ordinary, everyday business and commercial activity. I was much encouraged that at that stage my noble friend the Minister said that this was under review. I am more than pleased with the actual outcome. I know that once a Bill has been published it is very hard for the Government to do a radical overhaul, so we have to pay tribute to my noble friend the Minister and the Security Minister in the other place for having the courage to say that what we started with would not work well enough and to come back with such a significant set of revisions on Report. I thank him again for all he has done to achieve this.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I think I failed to hear something the Minister said earlier relating to Amendment 110A. I raise it because the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Carlile of Berriew, are both unable to be in the House this afternoon for various compelling reasons. The amendment helpfully tidies up part of the provision by ensuring that the reference to arrangements entered into before the clause comes into force does not apply to arrangements that have ceased to have effect. I think the Minister indicated that he was going to accept it and therefore, I presume, move it at the appropriate stage.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, raised valid areas with regard to the sometimes complex relationships between political parties and the Governments of states, which I hope the Minister, who referred to foreign Governments, can go a little further and point to. It is absolutely right that that is one of a number of criteria set down earlier in the Bill, in Clause 32, and that the meaning of a foreign power includes
“a political party which is a governing political party”.
There will still be issues when it comes to relationships such as demand and supply and other kinds of relations, but I hope that the Minister will provide clarity and proper consultations so that, when we come to the finalised guidance and regulations, those issues will be very clear. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that, as in the earlier group, we are still hoping for that bit of clarification on the German Stiftungen and others represented by the kinds of organisations that the Stiftungen are—those that operate within a public policy and political sphere but are not directly linked to the Government or governing political parties although they are, by definition, political in their nature. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that when he winds up.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, we have a number of scars on our back from legislation where we have tried to do heavy lifting in this Chamber to improve Bills. I tabled a number of amendments in Committee highlighting the concern that what had been brought forward was an unworkable scheme; I think we are now looking at a workable scheme. That is important for the security of our country.
I particularly welcome the draft registration forms, about which I had raised concerns in Committee. I am very pleased that the Minister will be having an active consultation. I am delighted that there will be an updated impact assessment. While the Minister said that that is required of the Government, in previous Bills some excuses have been made for impact assessments not to be updated, so I am very pleased about that. And on the draft regulations, as I said, I am delighted.
As I said on the earlier group, the Minister has been true to his word. I have just one final favour to ask of him. Given that I have been rather successful with colleagues in securing some concessions on this Bill, could he have a word with other Ministers, just to say that “Purvis is not always wrong”? Sometimes, we can do our job in this place; we can make the Government’s job a bit better and make unworkable schemes workable. I commend the Minister for how he has approached this so far.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, there seems to be a new approach to Ministers by buttering them up. I noticed my noble friend buttering up the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, the other day, which seemed to cause amusement in the House. Nevertheless, I too thank the Minister for his response to the earlier concerns raised. The primary tier of FIRS requires the registration of
“arrangements to carry out political influence activities within the UK”,
or to arrange for such activities to be carried out in the UK,
“at the direction of a foreign principal”.
Registration of political influence activity is also required
“where the activity is being carried out by the foreign principal itself. The foreign principal will be responsible for registering political influence activities”.
As I said, concerns were raised that this could impair international co-operation through political parties and similar organisations. It was previously reported that the Government might withdraw the primary tier entirely, but, instead, the Minister has removed the most controversial features of this and accepted Amendment 110A in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Carlile—and the name of the Minister himself is also on that amendment.
I also mention the contacts from the German embassy in relation to the same points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Balfe, at an earlier stage of Report: the concerns of political foundations such as the centre-left Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung and the centre-right Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung and whether they would have a duty to register. If the Minister could repeat what he said earlier, I hope that the minds of the representatives of those organisations will be put at rest.
I welcome what has been said. I hope that this is indeed a workable scheme. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who described a “radical overhaul”, which it is not usual to get on such an important Bill as this. I think that everybody accepts that this is a very important Bill and I hope that it will emerge from your Lordships’ House a better Bill than when it arrived.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate. I am feeling a little overwhelmed. The Government have moved a long way, as has been noted, on the FIRS scheme, which now tackles what it was originally intended to address. I thank all noble Lords for their probing amendments. I would particularly like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for paying special attention and noticing my deliberate error. I should have said—and I will repeat this because I repeated it the first time around—“foreign powers, including foreign Governments”.
With the leave of the House, and in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, I will speak to Amendment 110A, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. The Government do not intend to require the registration of defunct foreign influence arrangements, so we urge the House to support the amendment.
Amendments 114 and 121, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, would remove the requirement to register foreign influence arrangements at Clause 68, and the meaning of “political influence activity” at Clause 70, from the scheme. These clauses are essential to the functioning of the revised political influence tier of the scheme, and for this reason I ask that the amendments be withdrawn. I will, however, go into a little more detail on the impact on the proceedings of a UK-registered party in Clause 70. It is not intended to cover every activity undertaken by a UK political party. The focus is on where foreign powers are seeking to influence formal matters of a UK political party, such as candidates’ selections and adoption of policy through third parties; but it will not, for example, cover decisions around venue changes for joint conferences. In this way, we believe that this scheme is appropriately targeted to focus on the arrangements and activities where transparency is most needed, while avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy. However, I have heard the noble Baroness on a number of occasions now and I will certainly be taking her points into account when we are developing the guidance.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for his Amendment 166A. This would require the Government to consult, and lay a report in Parliament, on the merits of expanding the foreign influence registration scheme to those controlled by a foreign power seeking to influence public policy. Again, we have sympathy with this amendment and, indeed, one of the reasons why the Government originally sought a broader scheme was to fully capture the proxies of foreign powers. I share the noble Lord’s interest in ensuring we remain responsive to the risks posed by covert influence, but I reassure him that the Government will keep the impacts of the scheme, and any need to expand it, under careful review. The timings for this are important and I cannot accept an amendment that may tie the Government to evaluating the scheme before it has come into force and had a chance to bed in. So I ask him not to press this amendment but reassure him that the Government will be able to use the annual review requirements to assess areas where the scheme could be strengthened.
In addressing the point raised in both this group and the last by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, around the impact of the scheme on foreign political foundations, we did meet with representatives of the German embassy after the debate last week to discuss this scheme, and recognise the importance of the work carried out by political foundations such as the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung to promote political co-operation and the values of democracy and the rule of law. So I reassure the noble Lord that institutions such as these that operate independently of foreign powers will not have to register their activities. Receiving funding from a foreign power does not trigger a requirement to register under the scheme. Only where organisations are being directed by a foreign power through a power relationship to carry out political influence activities will that need to be registered. With that, I think that I have answered all the questions.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and Lord Sharpe’s other amendment to Clause 68(1) restrict the definition of foreign influence arrangements to arrangements with foreign powers.
“(1A) Where the foreign power is a specified person, the arrangement is not a foreign influence arrangement to the extent that it relates to political influence activities that are relevant activities for the purposes of section 64.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents overlap between foreign activity arrangements required to be registered under Clause 64 and foreign influence arrangements required to be registered under Clause 68.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment increases the time limit for registering a foreign influence agreement after it has been made.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the requirement to register foreign influence arrangements entered into before Clause 68 comes into force does not apply to arrangements which have ceased to have effect when the Clause comes into force.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to Clause 68, page 47, line 19.
(a) fails to comply with subsection (2), and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to ensure consistency with subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 68, which refer to the person who makes an arrangement as “P”.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendments to Clause 68(1).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendments to Clause 68(1).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the matters within subsection (3)(a), for consistency with Clause 14(3).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the matters within Clause 70(3) include a decision of a Minister of the Crown or a government department.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes reference to the proceedings of Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru. Persons in these assemblies are caught by other paragraphs in subsection (3).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the conduct of Members of Parliament etc is relevant only where those persons are acting in that capacity.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to Clause 71, page 49, line 13.
“(c) P knows, or having regard to other matters known to them ought reasonably to know, that they are acting pursuant to a foreign influence arrangement.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the test in Clause 71(1)(c).
“(2) A person other than P commits an offence if—(a) after the end of the registration period the person carries out a political influence activity, or arranges for a political influence activity to be carried out, in the United Kingdom pursuant to the arrangement,(b) the arrangement is not registered, and(c) the person knows, or having regard to other matters known to them ought reasonably to know, that they are acting pursuant to a foreign influence arrangement.(3) In this section the “registration period” means the period before the end of which P must register the arrangement (see section 68(2) and (3)).(4) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (2) it is a defence to show that the person—(a) took all steps reasonably practicable to determine whether the arrangement was registered, and(b) reasonably believed that the arrangement was registered.(5) A person is taken to have shown a matter mentioned in subsection (4) if—(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the applicable mens rea where a person other than P carries out the political influence activities in question.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendments to Clause 68(1).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendments to Clause 68(1).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendments to Clause 68(1).
“(3A) Where the foreign power is a specified person, the prohibition in subsection (3) does not apply to the extent that the political influence activities are relevant activities for the purposes of section 67.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment prevents overlap between the offence in Clause 67 and the offence in Clause 72.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to leave out Clause 72(1) and (2).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “ought reasonably to know”.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the test in subsection (8).
“(9) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (8) it is a defence to show that the person—(a) took all steps reasonably practicable to determine whether the activities were registered, and(b) reasonably believed that the activities were registered.(10) A person is taken to have shown a matter mentioned in subsection (9) if—(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides a defence to an offence under Clause 72(8).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendments to omit Clause 72(1) and (2).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to clause 66, page 46, line 20.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to Clause 71, page 49, line 20.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to Clause 71, page 49, line 20.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendments to omit Clause 72(1) and (2).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendments to omit Clause 72(1) and (2).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to Clause 71, page 49, line 20.
Member's explanatory statement
The amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendments to Clause 68(1).
““news-related material” , “publish” , and “recognised news publisher” have the meaning given by paragraph 4A.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and Lord Sharpe’s proposed new paragraph 4A of Schedule 15 incorporate the definitions of “news-related material”, “publish” and “recognised news publisher” in Schedule 15 rather than by cross-referring to the definitions in the Online Safety Bill.
“(1) In paragraph 4, “recognised news publisher” means any of the following entities—(a) the British Broadcasting Corporation,(b) Sianel Pedwar Cymru,(c) the holder of a licence under the Broadcasting Act 1990 or 1996 who publishes news-related material in connection with the broadcasting activities authorised under the licence, and(d) any other entity which—(i) meets all of the conditions in sub-paragraph (2),(ii) is not an excluded entity (see sub-paragraph (3)), and(iii) is not a sanctioned entity (see sub-paragraph (4)).(2) The conditions referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(d)(i) are that the entity—(a) has as its principal purpose the publication of news-related material, and such material—(i) is created by different persons, and(ii) is subject to editorial control,(b) publishes such material in the course of a business (whether or not carried on with a view to profit),(c) is subject to a standards code,(d) has policies and procedures for handling and resolving complaints,(e) has a registered office or other business address,(f) is the person with legal responsibility for material published by it in the United Kingdom, and(g) publishes—(i) the entity’s name, the address mentioned in paragraph (e) and the entity’s registered number (if any), and(ii) the name and address of any person who controls the entity (including, where such a person is an entity, the address of that person’s registered or principal office and that person’s registered number (if any)).(3) An “excluded entity” is an entity—(a) which is a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000 (see section 3 of that Act), or(b) the purpose of which is to support a proscribed organisation under that Act.(4) A “sanctioned entity” is an entity which—(a) is designated by name under a power contained in regulations under section 1 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 that authorises the Secretary of State or the Treasury to designate persons for the purposes of the regulations or of any provisions of the regulations, or (b) is a designated person under any provision included in such regulations by virtue of section 13 of that Act (persons named by or under UN Security Council Resolutions).(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)—(a) news-related material is “subject to editorial control” if there is a person (whether or not the publisher of the material) who has editorial or equivalent responsibility for the material, including responsibility for how it is presented and the decision to publish it;(b) “control” has the same meaning as it has in the Broadcasting Act 1990 by virtue of section 202 of that Act.(6) In this paragraph—“news-related material” means material consisting of—(a) news or information about current affairs,(b) opinion about matters relating to the news or current affairs, or(c) gossip about celebrities, other public figures or other persons in the news;“publish” means publish by any means (including by broadcasting), and references to a publisher and publication are to be construed accordingly;“standards code” means—(a) a code of standards that regulates the conduct of publishers, that is published by an independent regulator, or(b) a code of standards that regulates the conduct of the entity in question, that is published by the entity itself.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and Lord Sharpe’s amendment to paragraph 4 of Schedule 15 incorporate the definitions of “news-related material”, “publish” and “recognised news publisher” in Schedule 15 rather than by cross-referring to the definitions in the Online Safety Bill.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendment leaving out Clause 72(1) and (2).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on changes to the definition of foreign activity arrangement in Clause 64.
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1)(c) may, in particular, require the person to provide information about any political influence activities carried out, or arranged to be carried out, during the registration period by any person pursuant to the arrangement which is required to be registered.(2B) In subsection (2A) “registration period” has the same meaning as in section 71.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the breadth of the regulation-making power in Clause 74(1), and is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to Clause 71 allowing for political influence activities to be carried out during the registration period.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(ba) a person the Secretary of State reasonably believes to be carrying out relevant activities, or arranging for relevant activities to be carried out, in the United Kingdom pursuant to a foreign activity arrangement within paragraph (a) or (b);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to give an information notice to persons carrying out relevant activities pursuant to a foreign activity arrangement who are not themselves a party to the arrangement.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on changes to the definition of foreign activity arrangement in Clause 64.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on changes to the definition of foreign activity arrangement in Clause 64.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on changes to the definition of foreign activity arrangement in Clause 64.
“(ba) a person the Secretary of State reasonably believes to be carrying out political influence activities, or arranging for political influence activities to be carried out, in the United Kingdom pursuant to a foreign influence arrangement within paragraph (a) or (b);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to give an information notice to persons carrying out political influence activities pursuant to a foreign influence arrangement who are not themselves a party to the arrangement.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is for consistency with subsection (2)(e).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is for consistency with subsection (3)(e).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(3A) An information notice may only specify information which the Secretary of State considers may be relevant to an arrangement or activity within subsection (1) or (2).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the information which may be specified in an information notice.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on changes to the definition of foreign activity arrangement in Clause 64.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “ought reasonably to know”.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “ought reasonably to know”.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on changes to the definition of foreign activity arrangement in Clause 64.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on changes to the definition of foreign activity arrangement in Clause 64.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “ought reasonably to know”.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “ought reasonably to know”.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that Clause 79(2) only relates to the power in Clause 79(1)(a).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on changes to the definition of foreign activity arrangement in Clause 64.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendment omitting Clause 72(7).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendments to Clause 68(1).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendments to Clause 68(1).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment omits the definition of “foreign principal” and is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendments to Clause 68(1).
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, at the risk of being accused of buttering up the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, I should say at the outset that we are very grateful to him, his officials and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for their positive engagement with us on the Ministry of Justice aspects of the Bill. There has been significant movement by the Government on the MoJ provisions, and on this group in particular.
While that is the reality, there remain significant differences between us on these provisions. Our position on the damages reduction clauses in the Bill is that the power to reduce or extinguish damages in a case against the Crown on the basis that the claimant has been involved in some terrorist wrongdoing in the past should never have been in the Bill. After all, the clause does not require the conviction of a terrorist offence. Ground 1 in Clause 85(3)(a)(i) is the commission of such an offence, but the alternative ground in sub-paragraph (ii) is nebulously described as
“other involvement in terrorism-related activity”.
That could be serious or it could be limited. After all, even wearing clothing that might suggest support for a proscribed organisation is a terrorist offence. I therefore invite the Government to give the House an assurance that the provisions on reducing damages will not be invoked on unproven allegations emanating from a foreign state that a claimant has been involved in some terrorism-related activity under the alternative ground in Clause 85(3)(a)(ii).
We have serious concerns about Clauses 84 to 88 being part of the Bill. Those concerns are that they are restrictive of civil rights, effectively denying or restricting legitimate claimants’ access to the courts and their right to a remedy; that they could enable the Government to avoid liability for damages in the face of justified claims; and that they would reduce accountability and limit the publicity for genuine claims of government wrongdoing.
These clauses risk undermining two important democratic principles: first, that everyone is entitled to enforce their rights in court and, secondly, that, where a legal right is breached, there is a remedy. Our central question is, why should the Government be excused from paying damages in a case where their liability to a claimant is proved? I invite the noble and learned Lord to explain how the Government answer that central question. Why, also, have the Government not confined this power to cases within Clause 88, where there is a risk of damages being themselves used for the purposes of terrorism?
In Committee, I drew attention to the cases of Jagtar Singh Johal, Abdul Hakim Belhaj and Fatima Boudchar, arising from the British Government’s complicity in torture and, in the latter case, detention in Thailand and rendition to Libya. Their cases and other cases of government wrongdoing might risk being threatened by this new power. However, since Committee, and in response to one of the main criticisms I and others levelled at this clause, the Government have laid Amendment 169. My reading of that amendment, which agrees with the Ministers explanatory statement, is that the court may consider reducing damages
“only if there was a connection between the terrorist wrongdoing and the conduct of the Crown complained of in the proceedings.”
Because it is complex, I invited the noble and learned Lord to write. Today, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I have received a letter from the Minister containing that assurance. I hope he will forgive me if I read from it the relevant paragraph. He says, “On damages I am pleased to confirm your understanding of the intention and effect of the Government’s amendments to the scope of the Bill. The Government consider that they will mean that applications by the UK security services to reduce damages in national security cases will be possible only where there is a connection between the Crown’s conduct and the terrorist conduct of the claimant.”
That assurance, embodied in Amendment 169 and its consequential amendments, is a significant concession and answers an important criticism. Although the central criticisms of principle that I have outlined remain, we will not be pressing the stand part objections we have laid. Important among our concerns, as pointed out in Committee, is that the clause fails to set out criteria as to when and on what basis the court should exercise powers to reduce or extinguish damages. This was a matter extensively canvassed in Committee, but the Minister could really only say that the provisions were intended “to convey a message” that Britain should not be seen as a “soft touch” for terrorism. There was no guidance as to how and on what basis judges should exercise this new power. With the benefit of several weeks to consider the way in which the power is to be exercised, can the Minister please give us such guidance now?
I turn to Amendments 174 and 175 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Ludford. At present, Clause 85(4) requires the court to take into account whether
“there was a limitation on the ability of the Crown to prevent”
the wrongful conduct complained of, including on the basis that it occurred overseas or was carried out in conjunction with a third party. That formulation suggests that His Majesty’s Government are just too weak to control their own conduct, if wrongful, overseas, or in collaboration with a third party. That permitted excuse is inadequate. Our amendments would restrict permitting any such limitation on the Crown’s ability to prevent its own wrongful conduct to places where it was both carried out overseas and—not or—instigated by a third party.
In the noble Lord’s letter, to which I referred, he has indicated that the Government are not prepared to concede these amendments. I would nevertheless appreciate the Government’s further consideration of the present provisions as they stand, and of the effect of the amendments we propose. I look forward to his further consideration and his response, in the hope that we might get a little further if he comes back with something at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to some of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I echo his thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for their constructive engagement with us on the damages clauses. I too am satisfied that Amendment 169, in particular, and the assurance that the noble and learned Lord gave in writing—which I hope he will repeat on the Floor of the House—address the main concern. I am impressed also by the eloquent point he made in Committee, that these clauses simply confer a power, or discretion, on the court, and I am confident that the courts will exercise those powers fairly and sensibly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his amendments, and to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his comments. I hope the House will agree that the Government have been in listening mode throughout this Bill, and that we have in this particular instance moved quite considerably to deal with what the Government consider to be justified observations by your Lordships.
On the general point, the reforms are designed to protect the public, to deter those who seek to exploit our security services for compensation and to reduce the risk that court awards or damages may be used to fund terrorism—perhaps the most serious harm that can be perpetrated against society, going to its very fabric. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, asked me to restate the purpose of the clause and I think I have endeavoured to do so in those words.
On whether the Government can give any assurance that these provisions will not be invoked on the basis of
“unproven allegations … from a foreign state”,
I draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that this is a power in the court; it is entirely in its discretion. No court is going to act on anything other than proper evidence, so in the Government’s view there is no risk of the danger to which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred, because this is a court process with rules of evidence and proper and fair procedures.
With those two preliminary observations, I come to the central point that was at issue when we discussed this clause in Committee. We have listened to the concerns expressed by noble Lords that the legislation needed to ensure that no national security case fell into scope where there was no connection between the Crown’s conduct and the terrorist conduct of the claimant. I can repeat before this House the assurance in the letter I sent noble Lords today, to which we have already been referred, saying that there needs to be a causal connection between the conduct of the terrorist and the reduction in damages.
As to what criteria the courts should apply when considering these issues, I know that noble Members felt the courts would require further guidance. In the Government’s view, the courts do not require further guidance; they are well able to interpret and apply this legislation, especially in light of the amendments we have proposed. The Government have every confidence in the court being able to discharge its functions under these provisions.
Our courts are well versed in taking a wide range of relevant factors into account in determining liability and assessing the level of damages. There are a number of common-law considerations to which noble Lords referred in Committee which may indeed provide some guidance. We do not seek to exonerate the Crown in respect of its own culpability; we aim simply to ensure that the terrorist conduct is properly taken into account when calculating quantum.
I turn to what I think are the only live amendments on this part, Amendments 174 and 175. Those amendments would apply to the Bill’s provisions whereby a court would consider the context in which the Crown had acted to reduce a risk of terrorism, but their underlying intention seems to the Government to be to markedly restrict those provisions. As I understand it, the amendments seek to limit the consideration of the court to where the Crown’s actions had been commenced —the provisions use the word “instigated”—and the conduct was required to have taken place overseas at the instigation of a foreign state.
While the Government accept that there are difficulties in preventing terrorism when the action concerned needs to be taken overseas, there are so many different facts and circumstances flowing from the claimant’s own actions that the proposed amendments would significantly limit the effect of these clauses. In the Government’s view, the courts ought to have complete discretion to apply the clauses as they stand; a very tight restriction both as to instigation and to the requirement that the instigated conduct took place overseas would limit them inappropriately and improperly restrict the discretion courts should have under the provisions.
The Government further feel that there is scope in these amendments for some confusion. The two aspects, an overseas element and instigation, seem to be couched in language reminiscent of an exclusive list, quite apart from the difficulty of deciding exactly what one means by “instigation”. In practice, the Government feel that the courts should be left to exercise their discretion, as they surely will, without the limitation proposed by these amendments. That is the Government’s position on the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and I hope that in the light of what I have said, he will consider not pressing them.
There is one amendment by the Government—Amendment 181—which is proposed to ensure family proceedings in Scotland and Northern Ireland are excluded from the freezing and forfeiture provisions that are also part of this part, as with those in England and Wales. That simply corrects an oversight in the original drafting.
Having set out the Government’s amendments and why we are unable to accept the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, I commend Government’s amendments and ask the noble Lord to withdraw his.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I have heard the Minister’s explanation. It is right that the amendments that were between us were Amendments 174 and 175. Having considered his point on the court’s discretion, I am not sure that the difference between us is so wide as to justify my testing the opinion of the House on this occasion. I shall not move those two amendments and beg leave to withdraw the stand part amendment.
Lord Bellamy
(i) involves the commission of a terrorism offence or other involvement in terrorism-related activity, and (ii) has a connection with the conduct of the Crown complained of in the proceedings,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with the other Government amendments to this Clause, would mean that the court may consider the matters in Clause 85(3)(b) only if there was a connection between the terrorist wrongdoing and the conduct of the Crown complained of in the proceedings.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Government amendment to Clause 85(3)(a) removing the defined term “terrorist wrongdoing”.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Government amendment to Clause 85(3)(a) requiring consideration of whether there was a connection between the wrongdoing and the conduct of the Crown before considering its extent.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the matters referred to in this paragraph being referred to in Clause 85(3) as a result of the Government amendments to that subsection.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Government amendment leaving out Clause 85(4)(a).
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Government amendments to Clause 85.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we now move on to group four on legal aid. Again, I express our gratitude to the Minister, and to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his engagement with us on these provisions. Nevertheless, in spite of one welcome concession, to which I will turn, we oppose in principle the Bill’s proposals to exclude access to legal aid for those previously convicted of terrorist offences, however minor, subject only to the time and age conditions set out in the Bill. Legal aid, restricted as it might already be, is a right that we enjoy as citizens, and it is wrong simply to exclude that right for anyone convicted of a terrorist offence, however minor, whether or not the legal aid sought has any connection with the previous conviction. At least in relation to damages in the last group, the Government made the concession in Amendment 169, as we have heard, that, for the power to reduce damages to be exercised, there would have to be some connection between the past terrorist activity and the Crown’s wrongful conduct complained of in the proceedings. Here, no such connection is necessary before the exclusion of legal aid kicks in.
All we have from the Government in this group is an exception in Amendment 186 and its associated amendments for cases where an applicant for legal aid is the victim of domestic abuse. That is, of course, important, and it is welcome, but it is based on no discernible principle at all. If the victims of domestic violence should be entitled to legal aid, why not the victims of human trafficking, which, we observe, may well have led them into terrorist activity in the first place? Why not the victims of sexual offences? These two examples are the genesis of Amendments 186A and 186B in my name and the name of my noble friend Lady Ludford.
There are many examples of other cases where legal aid ought to be available, regardless of past convictions: family cases involving children, housing cases, Equality Act cases, and eligible cases of applications for judicial review. It is simply no answer for the Government to say that exceptional case funding remains available. The criteria for exceptional case funding are very restrictive. Broadly, they apply where convention rights are said to be infringed—principally in family, housing or benefits cases. There are very difficult hurdles to surmount before exceptional case funding is given, and there is no promise by the Ministry of Justice to make that funding more widely available.
In any case, the Government are trying to make legal aid more difficult to obtain for past terrorist offenders. It is a nonsense for them now to claim, and then rely on that claim, that it is not all that bad because exceptional case funding will make it easier for the very people they are trying to exclude from the availability of legal aid. So we put down Amendments 185 and 187 based on principle, and it is exactly the principle the Government conceded in the last group in relation to damages reduction: that legal aid would not be excluded in cases where there was no link—which we have called “no relevant factual connection”—between the past terrorist offence of which the applicant had been convicted and the current application for legal aid. I have invited the Minister and the Government to accept that principle. Were it accepted, we would not press these amendments to a vote because, although these clauses would still be unacceptable, much of the sting would be removed from them. In the letter from the noble Lord to which I alluded earlier, those amendments have not yet been accepted. I invite the noble Lord to reconsider that.
We also support Amendment 188 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Carlile of Berriew, and my noble friend Lady Ludford, restricting the exclusion of legal aid to cases where an offender has been sentenced to more than seven years for the relevant terrorist offence. At least those are serious terrorist offences—that is not a limitation in the Bill as currently drafted.
I regret that we cannot see the benefit of Amendment 188A, put down yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on behalf of the Labour Party, after what must have been weeks of thought. It seeks a review of the impact of Clause 89 on offenders sentenced to a non-custodial sentence. The review sought is very limited and does not address the flawed principle of the proposal or its application. We will stick to our principled amendments, and I beg to move.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to amendments in this group. I declare my interest as a practising barrister, sometimes representing clients on legal aid. The harmony that has broken out in this afternoon’s debates does not apply to this group, although I do thank the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, for engaging with me and others on this subject and for tabling an amendment that mitigates, to a limited extent, the mischief of Clause 89.
I will first cite some history. At the legal aid Bill’s Second Reading on 15 December 1948, the Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, told the House of Commons that civil legal aid was so important because it would
“open the doors of His Majesty’s courts and make British justice more readily accessible to the great mass of the population who hitherto have too frequently, I am afraid, had to regard these elementary rights—as they ought to be—as luxuries which were beyond their reach”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/1948; col. 1223.]
Sadly, the scope of legal aid has been much reduced in recent years by Labour Governments, Conservative Governments and by the coalition Government. But, where civil legal aid is still available, it remains a vital legal protection for individuals and their families. It is a noble scheme that goes some way, although not far enough, towards ensuring that a lack of financial resources is not a bar to access to justice. So it is objectionable in principle for the Bill to propose to remove eligibility, even subject to exceptions, for a category of people who are defined simply by the nature of the criminal offence of which they have been convicted.
Clause 89 is simply indefensible for three main reasons. First, it will apply irrespective of the seriousness of the criminal offence of terrorism of which the individual is convicted, so long as that offence is capable of being punished by up to two years’ imprisonment. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who cannot be in his place, pointed out in Committee that terrorism offences include such matters as
“inviting … support for a proscribed organisation”
and
“‘failure to disclose professional belief or suspicion about’ the commission of terrorist offences by others”.—[Official Report, 18/1/23; col. 1868.]
Now such criminal conduct is wrongful, but it may, and often does, lead to a short custodial sentence or even a community sentence. But, under Clause 89, any such conviction excludes a person from civil legal aid, subject to narrow exceptions, for 30 years, whatever sentence the court thinks is appropriate in the circumstances of the individual case. This is indefensible, and it is particularly so when, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, also pointed out, the recidivism rates for terrorist offenders are very low indeed: he gave the figure of 3%.
The second reason that Clause 89 is simply indefensible is that there is no exclusion from civil legal aid for those convicted of murder and rape, people who may receive life sentences and who normally receive very serious sentences for their offence. To single out terrorist offences, and to do so irrespective of the gravity of the individual offence, suggests to me, and I may not be the only one in this House, that the Government are more interested in political gestures than they are in pursuing any coherent principle.
The third reason that Clause 89 is simply indefensible is the one given by the noble Lord, Lord Marks: it will exclude persons from civil legal aid in cases which have no connection to the offence of terrorism of which they were convicted. A woman may be convicted of giving support to a proscribed organisation and receive a short custodial sentence or a community sentence, but 10 or 20 years later, she may be evicted, or face eviction, from her flat and face homelessness. The idea that she should be denied civil legal aid—and denied eligibility for civil legal aid—because of the terrorist conviction frustrates the very purpose of civil legal aid in a civilised society. Let us suppose the terrorist offender is beaten up in prison by prison officers—it does happen. Should he be excluded from eligibility for civil legal aid if he otherwise satisfies the relevant criteria? The idea that this proposal is brought forward by a Ministry of Justice defies credulity.
The only question in my mind is how best to remove or dilute the stain of Clause 89, and the Marshalled List contains a number of possible amendments, to some of which I have added my name: that Clause 89 should not stand part of the Bill, that it should be confined to those who are sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment or more, or that it should be confined to legal aid for a matter connected to the terrorism offence, which is the amendment preferred by the noble Lord, Lord Marks.
I am very sorry indeed that the Labour Front Bench is unwilling—as I understand it; I would welcome correction from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby—to support any of these amendments, and has itself tabled what can only be described as a weak amendment, Amendment 188A, which would require a review within 60 days of Clause 89 coming into force. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby spoke eloquently about Clause 89 in Committee; he is far too sensible and fair-minded to think personally that Clause 89 makes any sense. I assume, although I welcome correction, that the Opposition in the other place fear that they will be accused of being soft on terrorism if they support any of the substantive amendments. I think we all know what Sir Hartley Shawcross or the great Labour Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, would have said about that.
If, as I hope, the noble Lord, Lord Marks decides to test the opinion of the House on one of these amendments, he will certainly have my support.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I can speak briefly because my noble friend Lord Marks and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have spoken forcefully on this matter. The amendments to remove Clauses 89 and 90 are in my name and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I spoke at some length on this in Committee, and I believe it is a matter of principle—a very flawed principle, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said—to bar anybody with a terrorism offence, however minor, from being granted civil legal aid.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, admitted in Committee that this proposal was “symbolic”— I think he said it more than once. In other words, it is gesture politics. The hope must be, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, just said, to paint those of us opposing it as somehow soft on terrorism, but I put it to the Government that they could be regarded as soft on murder, rape and sexual offences. They are apparently content that major offenders against women, of the likes of Wayne Couzens and David Carrick, variously guilty of abduction, rape and murder, could one day be eligible for civil legal aid, but not someone who is a minor offender under terrorism laws. If they try to throw at us in the Daily Mail that we are soft on terrorists, the Government ought to be prepared for a counter charge that they are soft on murderers and rapists. Given the huge public concern in recent weeks, months and years about the volume and the type of offences against women, I do not think that the Government are going to come out of this well.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, these clauses restrict access to civil legal aid for convicted terrorists, although there are exemptions to this, such as when the convicted terrorist is under 18. I welcome government Amendments 184 and 186, where the Minister has made a further concession regarding people who have been victims of domestic violence and domestic abuse.
While we support the principle that terrorists should not receive legal aid, we are concerned that application of these clauses could permanently impact those with minor offences such as vandalism. We have therefore tabled Amendment 188A in my name to create a practical mechanism to address these concerns. This would establish a statutory review of the impact on those who receive non-custodial sentences. We will not support Amendment 180 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, which would allow terrorists to receive legal aid if their applications relate to a non-terrorism offence. We believe that these most serious offenders who commit attacks on the UK should not receive support, regardless of the nature of their later civil proceedings.
There is a point of principle here, which is that terrorism is a uniquely targeted offence against the British state, and we think that that needs to be recognised. However, there are the points of the low-level offences, which I brought to the attention of the Committee, and there is also the point that was acknowledged by the Minister about people who are victims of domestic abuse. So, there are principles here, but there is a clash of principles.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Will the noble Lord explain on behalf of the Official Opposition why, if terrorism is a unique crime against the state, he does not have a similar view of unique crimes against the integrity of the person, the integrity of women, that we have seen in the appalling crimes that have, thankfully and at last, led to convictions of the likes of Wayne Couzens and David Carrick? Those are offences against the integrity of the person, the integrity of women and the integrity of society. Why would they not be considered on a similar level to some terrorist offences, without giving any quarter to terrorism whatever, but on the lesser scale of terrorism? I think his “uniqueness” argument really demands justification.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I agree that it demands justification, which is that when terrorists carry out their activities, they are attacking in a random way the state itself. The attacks against women to which the noble Baroness referred are of course totally reprehensible, but do not attack the state in any way. They attack women for what they are and those offences are, of course, taken extremely seriously.
I accept that the Government’s amendments regarding civil legal aid on these offences send a message. I and the Labour Party accept and support that point. However, that needs to be ameliorated at the lower level and reviewed. That is why I will be testing the opinion of the House when we reach Amendment 188A.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
That does not clear a path in the Bill at all. I am rather shocked by Clause 89. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he accepts the position regarding someone who was convicted of terrorism some years before and brings a civil claim, particularly, for instance, for eviction from housing. Is he or she entitled to a lawyer in order to be able to come before the court and put his or her case? If so, there is an absence of fairness if that person cannot afford the lawyer that he or she would need, and would have to represent himself or herself. That seems to be contrary to access to justice.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we in the Opposition are accepting the principle that terrorism is uniquely terrible and needs to be dealt with in that way. However, my amendment calls for a review of the impact of this on certain lower-level cases.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The noble Lord is being patient, but what is there to review? Why has he not put down an amendment that simply excludes from this objectionable clause those who are convicted only in circumstances that lead to a non-custodial sentence? That surely is the logic of what he is saying. Why do we need a review?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
We need a review because we do not know what the impact is unless we have looked at the data. It seems to be as simple as that.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful and the noble Lord is being patient on these points. He referred to only the most serious cases and said that there was a separate issue with regard to cases that are less serious. In Committee, he used as an example a personal one: someone being convicted of the offence of graffiti. That woman—if indeed it was a woman—would no longer be able to get any legal aid support if she had been a victim of human trafficking or sexual attack. That cannot be right. Does the noble Lord agree that that is what he is supporting today?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
As the noble Lord knows, the amendment is calling for a review to look at the practical impact of the proposed legislation. We have yet to hear from the Minister on whether the Government accept that a review is necessary.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that this is Report and not an opportunity to further debate the matter.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
It is perfectly within the rules of the Companion for noble Lords to seek points of clarification or elucidation from those who are speaking.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am again extremely grateful to noble Lords for their interventions and, in particular, for the support for the principle behind Clause 89 expressed by the Official Opposition, subject to the point about minor offences, which I will come to in a moment.
As a quick reminder, Clause 89 narrows the range of circumstances in which individuals convicted of specific terrorism offences can automatically receive civil legal aid services. This includes individuals convicted of terrorism offences punishable with imprisonment for two years or more as well as other offences where a judge has found a terrorism connection. It is important to note that this clause modifies but does not exclude legal aid, because there is still the route of exceptional case funding, particularly if convention rights are in issue. One of the fundamental convention rights— I think this at least partially answers the point raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—is the necessity for a fair trial, in Article 6. The exceptional case funding route is still available in that regard. Phrases such as “excludes”, “denies”, “debars” and “no legal aid support” are not an accurate summary of what this clause achieves.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way, but is it not the case that no one gets exceptional case funding simply because they otherwise would not get legal aid? The point made by the noble and learned Baroness was that it is unfair, so you will not get a fair trial. However, that does not ground exceptional case funding —unless the noble and learned Lord has a different view of exceptional case funding from the rest of us.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, there might well be found applications for exceptional case funding; approximately 75% of such applications are successful each year. In any event, exceptional case funding is still available.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
On the question of numbers and definition, what is the essential definition of exceptional case funding and how many cases have given rise to such a relief?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I do not have the exact definition in front of me. It is a matter for the director of the Legal Aid Agency to decide. There is guidance on this, which applies in particular to cases of inquest and other areas where convention rights are at issue. I can supply my noble friend with further details in due course.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I do not have that information with me, but about three-quarters of applications succeed.
At the risk of disturbing the atmosphere of good will that has, to an extent, prevailed this afternoon, your Lordships would have expected me to explore with the Government whether there can be any further movement on this clause and I am sorry to say that, subject to the important exception for victims of domestic abuse in relation to family and housing matters, they adhere to the clause and respectfully present it to the House.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, seek to remove these clauses from the Bill altogether. The Government’s position is that the measures are necessary to ensure that our limited resources for legal aid funding are not directed towards individuals who attack society and democracy and, through their actions, commit acts of terrorism that seek to threaten and undermine the very democratic institutions which provide the benefit of legal aid. It is right that access to legal aid should therefore be subject to the provisions of this clause. Again, I understand that the Labour Party, in principle, accepts that approach.
It is certainly possible to argue, as the noble Baroness did, that if this applies to terrorism, why does it not apply to murder, the abuse of women, drug trafficking and other offences? Certainly, one can always advance an argument about where you draw the line. The line is drawn here at terrorism because of its particular threat to our society and democracy; that is the Government’s reasoning. As I have just said, it is not a blanket ban on civil legal aid because the exceptional case funding route ensures—in compliance with our obligations under the convention—that legal aid remains available when it is most needed to ensure access to justice.
Amendment 188, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would limit the restriction to where an offender has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of seven years or more. I acknowledge of course the noble Lord’s concerns, but the Government oppose this amendment on the following grounds. The Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021, introduced following the Fishmongers’ Hall and Streatham Hill terrorist attacks, expanded the sentencing powers of courts in relation to terrorist offenders and created more restrictive provisions for terrorist offenders whose offences carry a maximum sentence of more than two years. So, the two-year benchmark is already baked into legislation, and the Government feel that it is the appropriate benchmark in this instance.
The noble Lord’s seven-year sentence proposal would mean that a number of quite serious terrorism offences would escape: for example, the breach of a TPIM notice. It would also—by reference to sentencing, as distinct from the statutory definition of an offence—create quite a subjective difference between offenders when one has got more than the other: one is a bit above and one is a bit below, perhaps because one has had more previous convictions than the other, or for whatever reason. So, the Government think that the two-year benchmark in existing legislation is logical, defendable and clear and that it should remain. So, with regret, the Government are unable to accept Amendment 188 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
Amendment 187, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, would make the restriction not apply if the terrorism offence of which the individual had been convicted had no relevant factual connection with their application for legal aid. We quite understand the noble Lord’s intention behind that amendment, but, again, the Government cannot accept it. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, this is a point of principle. The Government have considered with great care the proposal put forward and consider that the fact of a conviction for a terrorist offence carrying a sentence of more than two years is a ground for restricting the route by which legal aid is granted, so we are unable to accept this amendment.
However, we have tabled government Amendments 182, 183, 184 and 186 to create an exception so that the restriction will not apply where a terrorist offender is a victim of domestic abuse and is applying for legal aid related to family and housing matters within a relevant time period. That would include such matters as pursuing protective injunctions in child custody cases, as well as the loss of a home or homelessness. Again, the question arises: if you have extended it there, why do you not extend it somewhere else? The answer, I think, is that one has to draw a line somewhere. Those are particularly serious issues in society as it stands, and that seems to the Government to be a sound basis for making an exception. It is not our position that it is relevant or wise to create any further exceptions.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify a point from his earlier comments on exceptional case funding. The guidance on this on GOV.UK says:
“You could get legal aid for cases that would not usually be eligible if your human rights are at risk. This is known as exceptional case funding”.
Can the Minister clarify: under the Bill, will anybody who receives any sentence for any terrorism offence now automatically be eligible for exceptional case funding?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
No, that is not the Government’s position. There is a mechanism by way of exceptional case funding to ensure access to justice in an appropriate case.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Then the point that the Minister referred to about the Bill is irrelevant, because the eligibility for exceptional case funding is regardless of whether the Bill is in place.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
It is not entirely irrelevant that exceptional case funding is always available for access to justice. That fact changes some of the comments that have been made about the restrictive nature of the Bill.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, there is a sharp division of opinion on the general principles here. I share the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, at the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on behalf of the Labour Front Bench, particularly in view of the way the Labour Front Bench spoke in favour of the principles we enunciated in Committee. I do not propose to press Amendment 180, but when the time comes, I will seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 185.
Lord Bellamy
“(a) in relation to England and Wales, has the meaning given by section 75(3) of the Courts Act 2003; (b) in relation to Northern Ireland, has the meaning given by Article 12(5) of the Family Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 (S.I. 1993/1576 (N.I. 6));(c) in relation to Scotland, has the meaning given by section 135 of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 and includes proceedings under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (asp 1).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides a definition of “family proceedings” in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as England and Wales.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the limitation on the availability of civil legal aid to an offender where the services are provided to them as victims of domestic violence in relation to a matter arising out of a family relationship in which there has been, or is a risk of, domestic violence.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that the Director has to determine that one or more of the additional conditions is met in order for civil legal services to be available to offenders.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to this Clause inserting a new Condition G.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Marks’ other amendment to this clause inserting a new Condition G1. Condition G1 will become Condition H if the amendment to be moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom inserting a new Condition G is accepted.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 185.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(7A) Condition G is met where—(a) the general case services are those described in paragraph 11, 33, 34 or 35 of Schedule 1 (services in relation to domestic violence and housing), and(b) the offender—(i) was or is a victim of domestic violence occurring after the relevant date, or(ii) is at risk of being a victim of domestic violence.(7B) In subsection (7A)—“domestic violence” has the meaning given in paragraph 12(9) of Schedule 1;“relevant date” means the date five years before the application date.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow offenders to access civil legal aid in relation to services relating to domestic violence and housing where they were at any time in the five years preceding their application, or at any time after their application, victims of domestic violence, or are at risk of being victims of domestic violence.
“(10A) Within 60 days of this section coming into force, a Minister of the Crown must publish a review in to the impact of this section on offenders who have been sentenced to a non-custodial sentence.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment means that a Minister must review the impact of restrictions on legal aid on those who receive non-custodial sentences.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Amendments of Terrorism Act 2000Schedule (Amendments of Terrorism Act 2000) contains amendments to the Terrorism Act 2000.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces the new Schedule inserted by Lord Sharpe before Schedule 17.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
My Lords, Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000—hereafter referred to as TACT —confers a power on a police officer to arrest a person whom they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist. Under Section 41, officers are able to detain someone before charging or releasing them. The Section 41 detention clock allows them to do so for a maximum period of up to 14 days. It is possible for a person to be arrested under Section 24 of PACE then subsequently rearrested under Section 41 of TACT. This might happen, for example, when information comes to light during the investigation indicating that the offence of which the individual is accused has a terrorist connection. Under the current position, the time spent in detention under Section 24 would, in theory, not be counted towards the initial 48-hour permissible period of detention under Section 41. Though counting this time is, in fact, current operational practice, the Government are clear of the need to codify this practice and ensure that the safeguard continues to apply in all future cases. This is what this amendment does, while aligning the power relating to foreign power threat activity contained in Part 1 of this Bill.
Schedule 5 to TACT contains a power under which an officer of at least the rank of superintendent may, by a written order, give to any constable the authority which may be given by a premises search warrant issued by the court for the purposes of a terrorist investigation. The authorising officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that the case is one of great national emergency and that immediate action is necessary. We are seeking to amend Schedule 5 to TACT to create an ex post factum judicial authorisation safeguard. This will require the police to apply to the court for a warrant in relation to any relevant confidential journalistic material seized during the search that they need to retain for the purposes of a terrorist investigation. In the interests of national security, it is right that confidential material should be accessible in cases where the police can show that the action is necessary, proportionate and satisfies the legal tests in these provisions, while pursuing a terrorist investigation.
However, the Government also recognise that press freedoms are extremely important. Therefore, when such material is seized during a search that has been authorised under this urgent procedure, it is right that a warrant must be sought from a judge for its continued retention, and that an application for retention can be ex post factum, after the search itself has taken place. This approach reflects recent case law and ensures that the provisions provide appropriate protection for journalists. This amendment will also align this aspect of Schedule 5 to TACT with the equivalent urgent premises search power found in Schedule 2 to this Bill.
I turn to Amendment 192, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. This amendment seeks to impose on the Secretary of State a duty to implement the recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Russia. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government published their response to the Russia report on the day the report itself was published, 21 July 2020. Although the report did not itself enumerate specific recommendations, all the recommendations that could be identified in the report were addressed in the government response. A majority of the ISC’s recommendations had already been implemented by the Government before the report was published—for example, those covering co-ordination of HMG’s Russia work, close working with international partners and continued exposition and attribution of malign Russian activity. The then Home Secretary reiterated this in a Statement made to the House on 17 January 2022.
The Government’s response made our approach to tackling the recommendations in the report clear. By introducing effective new tools and powers for the police and security and intelligence agencies, this Bill can rightly be seen as delivering on commitments that the Government made in their response. Noble Lords will also be aware that the Government implement the vast majority of all ISC recommendations. However, there may be occasions when, for reasons including national security, we may not be able to take forward specific recommendations. We do not consider further reporting nor this amendment necessary, given the actions that the Government have already taken in response to the report.
Amendment 193, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, seeks to impose a duty on the Prime Minister to update the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the Intelligence and Security Committee to reflect the changes to the Government’s intelligence and security activities as a result of the Bill. Section 3(2) of the Justice and Security Act 2013 already provides for the ISC to make reports
“as it considers appropriate concerning any aspect of its functions”.
That already gives the ISC the ability to report on matters that fall within its remit so far as is consistent with the MoU—for example, to seek to avoid duplicating the work of other committees. Amending the Bill as proposed might be taken to imply that the ISC required explicit legislative nomination to propose changes to the MoU in relation to changes in intelligence and security arrangements brought in by Bills, which is not the case.
I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I am aware that there are concerns about how the now closed tier 1 investor route operated—in particular, concerns that the route was used by those relying on funds that had been illegitimately acquired and those who may have posed a wider risk to the UK’s national security. It was because of those concerns that we committed to a review of visas issued under the route between 2008 and 2015. The Home Secretary made a Written Ministerial Statement on 12 January setting out the findings of that review, including that the review had identified a minority of individuals connected to the tier 1 investor visa route who were potentially at high risk of having obtained wealth through corruption or other illicit financial activity, or being engaged in serious and organised crime.
The Statement of 12 January represents the Government’s substantive response to the commitment to undertake a review and publish our findings. I am aware that some noble Lords would have preferred that the published review had included more information about specific individuals. However, we have had to act responsibly with regard to the UK’s national security. We have sought to strike the right balance between setting out the broad findings of the review and the constraints on disclosing sensitive details, which must be withheld at the request of our operational partners to protect our border, and the vital work of our law enforcement agencies.
I stress that this Government have already acted decisively regarding the risks posed by the tier 1 investor route to the UK’s national security when we closed the route on 17 February 2022. The Government have also been clear that any future visa programme in the investment space must operate on a fundamentally different premise from the previous one, with a far greater focus on skills and impacts, rather than just cash in the bank. I beg to move.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, this is the first opportunity I have had to join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for the various significant changes the Government have made to the National Security Bill and the improvement they have brought.
I shall speak to my Amendments 192 and 193. Again, I thank the Minister for his various amendments in this group, which are also an important step forward. I will leave the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who has signed my Amendment 192, to speak to his Amendment 194.
Amendment 192 deals with the recommendations of the July 2020 ISC Russia report. The Minister has addressed some of those but I have one or two questions to ask him before I turn to Amendment 193, which is the real priority for me in this group. The report highlighted the fragmentation of the various bodies. The Minister has spoken about how the Government seek to address that, but we would all like to know how the supposed co-ordination of the government response to the Russia report is being monitored to ensure that it is taken forward, and that what the Government say about the need for co-ordination to tackle fragmentation is made a reality.
The report highlighted again the prominence of dodgy Russian money in London. The Government will say, quite rightly, that they have at last taken action on that. How is that progress being monitored, so that we know how effective it has been, particularly in light of Ukraine? Similarly, can the Government reassure us that the various threats to democratic processes that the report highlighted are being addressed? I do not intend to press Amendment 192 to a vote—I am really just asking about the progress made since the report was published. As the Minister said, the Government’s response was published on the same day, but the question is how we maintain the progress that we all want to see on the various issues raised.
I will try to be as brief as possible on Amendment 193. The ISC’s annual report, published on 13 December 2022, clearly laid out the need to update the memorandum of understanding. That is what my Amendment 193, on which I will test the opinion of the House, seeks to do: to update the MoU the ISC operates under to reflect the changes made by the Bill and those made over the last few years. The Minister himself referenced the various government departments that now have responsibility for different aspects of security and intelligence, a point I will come to in a moment.
Let us remember that the ISC was set up in 1994 to allow for greater parliamentary oversight of these important matters, while respecting the obvious need for national security—an issue brought into sharp focus by the excellent Saunders report on the horrific Manchester Arena attack. The current MoU is out of date. The commitment made by the Security Minister in 2013 during the passage of the Justice and Security Act—that the MoU is a live document that is easily changed—needs to be honoured.
Who oversees the increasing devolution to policy departments of intelligence and security activities? How can parliamentarians scrutinise those when only ISC members with the necessary security clearance can access classified information? The Select Committees supposedly tasked with these various oversight roles are not suitable for that reason, rather than for any reason of capability. They simply do not have the security clearance to look at classified information.
The following departments and bodies are mentioned in the Saunders recommendations: the Department for Education, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Law Commission, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice—and that is the open part of the report; for obvious reasons, we will not know what is in the closed part. If the ISC oversees all this, as it is perhaps expected to do in light of the recommendations, how will that work with regard to the Department for Education and the various other departments?
Our committee says that the outdated MoU is a real problem, but the Government say it is not. The ISC says it is a problem, but the Government simply dismiss it and say it is not. Can the Minister explain how members of a Select Committee—let us use BEIS as an example—can oversee classified information that informs the work of a body they are responsible for if they cannot see that information? Pages 42 and 43 of the Intelligence and Security Committee annual report lists numerous departments that have various security and intelligence functions they are supposed to oversee, but they will not be able to see the classified information because they do not have the security clearance. The ISC itself cannot oversee this because that is not part of the memorandum of understanding under which it works.
The committee was told, as I said, that the Government do not feel bound by statements made by the Security Minister to Parliament in 2013. So what weight should we give to any Ministerial Statements the Minister makes if, in a few years’ time, the Government can simply say, “We don’t give any weight to what was said in 2013”? Parliamentary Statements by Ministers of the Crown are supposed to be justifications of policy. We all rely on them. Courts rely on them. Many amendments to this Bill were withdrawn earlier because of what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box and the reassurances he gave, yet the Government are saying that they no longer agree with the 2013 assurances given by then Security Minister, so they will ignore them. We are talking not about policy—I understand how policy works—but about process and the need to update it. As I say, that is very disappointing, to say the least.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, my name is on Amendments 192 and 194. I also support Amendment 193. I remind the Minister that the Conservative 2019 manifesto states:
“We will protect the integrity of our democracy, by introducing … measures to prevent any foreign interference in elections.”
This Bill partly does that—not in my opinion sufficiently, but it takes us some way in this direction. There are questions of transparency and of accountability, about which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has just been speaking, and broader questions about public information and public education into the nature of the threat and the experience which we have so far had of that threat.
I remind the Minister, that paragraph 47 of the Russia report has as its heading, “Lack of retrospective assessment”. It says:
“We have not been provided with any post-referendum assessment of Russian attempts at interference … This situation is in stark contrast to the US handling of allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, where an intelligence community assessment was produced within two months of the vote, with an unclassified summary being made public.”
It goes on to say that it is
“the Committee’s view that the UK Intelligence Community should produce an analogous assessment of potential Russian interference in the EU referendum and that an unclassified summary of it be published.”
The following chapter talks about the high level of integration for Russian oligarchs within London society and, in particular, political parties—including mentioning penetration of the House of Lords. In effect, it recommends that some of that should be published. Very little has been, which leads to Daily Mail allegations of all sorts of things about the House of Lords, which I suspect are exaggerated, and to a lack of understanding of the nature of the threat. I understand that many of these issues might embarrass the Conservative Party because the penetration, influence and money has most evidently gone to the Conservative Party. However, I can easily imagine what a Conservative Party in opposition would be saying if it were a Labour Government who were refusing to accept the recommendations of the ISC in this respect. Accountability and public education are important. In this respect, they have failed.
On Amendment 194, I take the same view in terms of accountability and public education on the golden visa scheme, and some of that review should be published. We have heard very little about the problem of Chinese rich people in Britain. I remind the Minister that by far the largest nationality of origin of people who have come in under the golden visa scheme was Chinese. The second largest was Russian, and then there were various other nationalities, including a lot of central Asian nationalities. We need to understand a little better what the experience has been, what the sensitivities have been, and what we should learn from that. The Government, in keeping it all under wraps, are failing not only to account to Parliament about what is going on but to tell the public what sort of world we now live in and where there are sensitivities about which we should be concerned. This Bill, as a whole, is trying to sensitise some of the public to the delicacies of our international relations.
Part of our problem in Britain is that we live in a highly internationalised world, with a very large number of rich people in London living among us. My wife and I have just begun to face up to the dreaded problem of downsizing. As we go around parts of London, we see estate agents who tell us that 20% to 40% of the people to whom they have sold houses in recent years have been from overseas—from the Middle East, eastern Europe, Russia and Asia. Again, many of these are highly desirable people buying second homes in London. However, we need to know where there are problems, what we should have been thinking about, what the government have now learned and what they would like the public to understand.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I support on behalf of the ISC Amendment 193 in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker. This amendment would update the ISC’s remit to ensure it has the power effectively to scrutinise intelligence and security activity that will be taking place across government under the new national security regime.
The ISC already has the power to oversee much of the intelligence and security activity that will take place. However, as my noble friend Lord Coaker outlined very persuasively, the ISC’s oversight has generally been eroded due to intelligence and security activities often now being undertaken by policy departments which do not generally carry out national security-related activity. He mentioned a list of them and there are many. They were not included in the ISC’s remit and they can—I have to say, they have often—excluded the ISC from looking at the material that we think we should look at. If the Government establish new teams as part of this Bill which sit outside our remit, this amendment will make sure that the memorandum of understanding is updated, and we will be able to have access to do our job for Parliament scrutinising this highly classified material.
Updating the ISC’s MoU is vital, as effective oversight of intelligence and security can be undertaken effectively only by the Intelligence and Security Committee. Unlike Select Committees, the ISC’s purpose is to oversee these highly classified matters which relate to national security on behalf of Parliament. It is therefore the only parliamentary body with the necessary security infrastructure to scrutinise the material that often underpins national security decisions. This issue of having the right material affects the staff. For example, civil servants, who are working with regular access to “top secret” have to have DV. If one looks across government at the moment, I am not sure that that is the case in some departments. They also, including Ministers, have to be read into the STRAP material, and then there is the extra physical security to store “top secret” and STRAP material. It is considerable, and I am not convinced that this is the case across government.
As my noble friend Lord Coaker mentioned, the Government understandably provided a very clear commitment to Parliament, during the passage of the Justice and Security Act 2013, that the ISC’s MoU would be kept updated. Unfortunately—we noted this in our last annual report—this has not been done. They have not stood by this commitment. I cannot understand what difficulty the Government have with this, because I would have thought it was in the interests of the Government to ensure that Parliament has an ability to do this.
I can only repeat the words of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker:
“Each piece of new legislation devolving national security matters away from bodies already overseen by the ISC should come with commensurate expansion of the ISC’s MoU”.
This has been promised by the Government and it should be done. This amendment will seek to do that if, as a result of this Bill, the Government do indeed establish new teams outside the ISC’s current remit. However, as this amendment is linked to this Bill only, it understandably has limited scope; it will not fix the lack of effective oversight in other national security legislation, such as the Telecommunications (Security) Act, where, again pretty much across this House, people argued that the ISC should have the ability to scrutinise that. But it will be a very useful start to help embed the oversight provisions, and for that reason I support this amendment.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I want to support Amendment 193, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. He said that he felt the memorandum of understanding had not been renewed and brought up to date for no good reason. I believe it is worse than that. I think it has not been revised for a bad reason: because the Government have taken a dislike to the Intelligence and Security Committee. They have tried to restrict its activities, I believe for two reasons. First, the Government were piqued when there was pressure to publish the Russia report before the 2019 election and they did not want that. I suspect the reason they did not want it was that they did not want the discussion which the report introduced about the involvement of Russian apparatchiks in London politics. Secondly, I believe the Government were piqued because the committee did not elect as its chairman the person whom the Government wanted. It seems extraordinary that one could say of a responsible Government that these were their motives; they are childish motives. But the consequence is that in recent times the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament has not been used for the purpose for which it was set up.
If the Government are not going to use the Intelligence and Security Committee properly, they should save money and abolish it. But, of course, they will not do that because Parliament set it up, Parliament thinks it is important that this House and the House of Commons should have some insight into intelligence operations, and it would be unacceptable for the Government to abolish it. But they must choose either to abolish it or to use it properly. If they are to use it properly, they must update the memorandum of understanding and, as the noble Lord, Lord West, said, use it for the purpose for which Parliament intended: to give oversight by people who are fully screened within the ring of secrecy to report to Parliament. I think this is a much more important amendment than the face of it suggests.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, again I thank all those who have spoken on this group of amendments, and in particular I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his generous remarks.
In terms of the Russia report, it is simply not true that we have not implemented the report’s recommendations. As I said in my opening remarks, the Government published a full and comprehensive response to the ISC report in July 2020, which is available online and which addressed all the committee’s key themes and recommendations point by point. The Government have responded to all the recommendations that could be identified within the report. The majority of the committee’s recommendations were already being implemented by the Government before the report was published: for example, those covering co-ordination of HMG Russia’s work, close working with international partners, and continued exposition and attribution of malign Russian activity.
I would say also that, as noted in HMG’s response to the Russia report, an assessment was produced and is available at a higher classification. Noble Lords will appreciate the difficulties of producing intelligence assessments for the wider public, given the risks of putting sensitive material, including information about our capabilities and methods, into the public domain.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Before the noble Lord moves on to a different amendment, can he answer my question? How can Select Committee members, who do not have the necessary security clearance, possibly look at and scrutinise classified material on Parliament’s behalf?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
If they do not have the necessary security clearances, they obviously cannot, but, as I said earlier, that is part of the full consideration of the MoU and the various changes to the machinery of government that is currently under way.
Lord Beith (LD)
Has the noble Lord quite grasped the significant value of the ISC? I speak as someone who used to be on it. One aspect is its value to the Prime Minister, who gets a detailed assessment of aspects of security in circumstances where nobody else can, and he alone can do something about it. It is also an important guarantee to parliamentary colleagues in both Houses that things that cannot be disclosed are being examined by people whom colleagues trust, and that is very important in order to have some confidence that there is oversight going on.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I completely agree with the noble Lord. I certainly get it, and I hold the ISC in great respect, including the noble Lords in this House who are members. As I have said, the Justice and Security Act requires the Prime Minister to read the report before it is published. He gets an unredacted version, so he sees the full picture, and I have committed to take back the House’s concerns about attending the committee, via my noble friend Lord True.
If I may, I will turn to the tier 1 investor visa route, and I am afraid that I will have to repeat a number of things that I said in my opening remarks. The review of visas issued under the route took place relatively recently. A Written Ministerial Statement on 12 January set out the findings of that review, which reviewed visas issued between 2008 and 2015. That included that it had identified a minority of individuals connected to the tier 1 investor visa route that were potentially at high risk of having obtained wealth through corruption or other illicit financial activity. The Statement represented the Government’s substantive response to the commitment to undertake that review and publish its findings.
I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, would have preferred that the published review included more information about specific individuals. I agree with his remarks about protecting our democracy and transparency. However, we have had to act responsibly in regard to the UK’s national security. We have sought to strike the right balance between setting out the broad findings of the review and the constraints on disclosing sensitive details, which must be withheld at the request of our operational partners to protect our border and the vital work of our law enforcement agencies. I think that those are perfectly reasonable points to have made in regard to the tier 1 investor visa.
I appreciate that I have not given as fulsome answers as all noble Lords would like, but in light of the answers that I have given, I request that noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Lord Coaker
“Duty to update the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament's memorandum of understanding(1) The Prime Minister must ensure that the memorandum of understanding between the Prime Minister and the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (the “ISC”) under section 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 (the “MoU”) is revised to reflect any changes to the intelligence or security activities of His Majesty’s Government as a result of this Act.(2) Any revisions to the MoU under subsection (1) must be agreed between the Prime Minister and the ISC in accordance with the process set out in section 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013.(3) Any engagement between the Prime Minister and the ISC relating to revisions to the MoU under subsection (1) must commence within the 6-month period beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the ISC’s Memorandum of Understanding is updated to reflect this Act.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As I indicated, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Coaker
“Proscription of organisations: hostile activity on behalf of another State(1) Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must publish draft legislation establishing a process for the proscription of actors engaged in hostile activity within the meaning of paragraph 1(5) of Schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019.(2) Such legislation must have reference to the existing proscription process as governed by section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (proscription).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to propose a new proscription process for actors engaged in hostile activity on behalf of other states.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 195, I will not speak at great length. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to propose a new proscription process for actors engaged in hostile state activity on behalf of other states, or indeed non- state organisations acting for a state or those who may act on their behalf.
I am moving this amendment to enable the Government to deal with any legislative problem in proscribing, among others, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, known as the IRGC. The Government will tell the Chamber and me that existing legislation can deal with it, so it is not a problem. So why is there a delay in proscribing the IRGC? If there is no problem with existing legislation, why are Foreign Office officials questioning, as reported in the Times and many other media outlets, how the IRGC can be defined as a terrorist organisation under existing legislation, given that it is a government agency, unlike most of the other groups on the list? Foreign Office officials are being reported in the media as saying that there is a problem with the legislation. The Home Office is saying—I presume this is what the Minister will say—that there is not. Where has that come from? Why is the Foreign Office briefing the media that the reason it is resisting the proscription of the IRGC is that it is not sure that existing legislation will be adequate to define the IRGC as a terrorist organisation because it is a government agency.
There is a problem here at the heart of government. My Amendment 195 seeks to say to the Government, “Here is a legislative vehicle by which you can plug a gap so that the concerns raised by the Foreign Office can be alleviated”. The Home Office and the Foreign Office cannot both be right. So we should pass the legislation as I have laid it out here. I have read—I was advised that this was the way to give the Government a vehicle to deal with any legislative problem in the proscription of the IRGC, as laid out by the Foreign Office—the various parts of the 2000 Act and the 2019 Schedule in front of me and, as much as I can read and understand them, I will have to take the Foreign Office’s word that it is because it is a government agency that there is a problem.
As I said, something is the matter here. It is the will of Parliament, as expressed time and again in this place and in the other place, that the IRGC should be proscribed, but the Government are unable to do it. Therefore, all of us should pass this amendment to get rid of the legislative barrier that the Foreign Office says stays in the way. I am not a legislative expert, but, if the Foreign Office says there is a problem, if I were in the Home Office, I would pass this amendment and call out the Foreign Office if I wanted to proscribe the IRGC. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Government wish to proscribe the IRGC and whether there is a problem with the Foreign Office. Clearly there is; the Minister will not say there is, but there is.
We have seen an Iranian TV station in the UK forced to shut down because of activity from Iran. Numerous plots have been foiled, thanks to our security services. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, is here, and the noble Baroness, both former heads of MI5, so we thank them. But the Government are prevaricating on the proscription of the IRGC. My amendment, as I said, seeks to help the Home Office in its disagreement with the Foreign Office by allowing the creation of an improved and clearer process for proscribing hostile state actors.
The Government are divided in the face of this worrying issue. The Government will say they are not, so I was looking for evidence to show that they were. What did I find? In Hansard, Bob Blackman MP—not me trying to create trouble in the Lords but a Conservative MP—said:
“Clearly, the threat from the IRGC to people in this country—be they opposition journalists reporting on what is going on in Iran at the moment or UK citizens—is paramount. Foreign Office Ministers have responded to all the urgent questions the Speaker has granted and the debates we have had, but will my right hon. Friend now take the obvious step, which is supported by all political parties in the Chamber, and proscribe the IRGC in its entirety?”
Tom Tugendhat, Minister, Home Office, responds with this direct quote:
“My hon. Friend will know that it is not me”—
I am quoting this—
“he has to persuade in this matter and that there are many areas where I would like to go. I can assure him that the Government are absolutely listening to exactly what he is saying. The Home Secretary and I are as one on this”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/2/23; col. 639.]
I am not a genius at working out what that means, but I think anybody who has been in the other Chamber or in this Chamber and has listened to the debate knows that the National Security Minister is telling Bob Blackman MP that the Home Secretary and he agree that the IRGC should be proscribed, but they have a problem with other parts of government, and those other parts of government are the Foreign Office, which believes that it should keep open communication with Iran and that proscribing the IRGC will cause all sorts of other problems, presumably around the nuclear treaty and so on and so forth.
All I am saying to the Minister is that the Foreign Office is clearly blocking the proscription of the IRGC, which is what the majority of people in this Chamber and the other think should happen, and my amendment seeks to take away from it the excuse it is using: namely, that there is a legislative problem, because the IRGC is a government agency and it would therefore be difficult under existing legislation to define it as a terrorist organisation.
Amendment 195 is extremely important, because it will allow the proscription of the IRGC and will take away from the Foreign Office the excuse that it is using to block that proscription. It is in the national security interests of this country for the IRGC to be proscribed as soon as possible. From what I just quoted, it is obvious that the Government, defined as the Home Office, agree, but the Foreign Office is stopping it. This Chamber has the opportunity, in the vote on my Amendment 195, to take away the excuse that the Foreign Office is using to stop that proscription. I hope that noble Lords will take it.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for bringing this issue to the Chamber on Report. He asked very pertinent questions. If he seeks to test the opinion of the House, we shall abstain on this point, but that is not because we do not wish to hear the Minister’s answer—it is because, if we are reforming the Terrorism Act 2000 and the means by which we proscribe organisations, there are perhaps better places for a full and more fundamental review.
I have been on record as supporting the proscription of the IRGC, and I have said that this should not be done without considering the knock-on effects within Iraq and Lebanon. The Terrorism Act 2000 states that it is the Home Secretary who has the specific power to proscribe, so the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked are valid. If this is a Home Office Minister stating that to the House of Commons and it is the Home Secretary’s decision, what is the process by which government will now make decisions on this? I have also repeatedly called for the proscription of the Wagner Group, which is a non-government organisation but clearly has direct links with the Russian Government.
There are, of course, some grey areas. Before we reached this group, I reviewed the whole list of those proscribed organisations, and we have recently proscribed some that are clearly not linked with a Government but are organisations designed to destabilise that country’s Government. However, over the years, there have been other organisations where the lines are more blurred as to whether they are within the framework of aliases or associated organisations, which can be proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000, even if they are not directly part of the Government of that nation. It is obviously a large step if we proscribe part of a Government, but, in the past, we have seen that, in many areas, it has not been clear who the Government of a country are. Therefore, the statutory tests that are used, and that need to be satisfied, need to be robust.
I have raised the issue of the Wagner Group since 25 April last year, and I have seen it operating with my own eyes in Sudan—some noble Lords have heard me make this case before—and it is palpably the case that its operations are terrorist in purpose and in nature and that they are directly against the national security interests of the United Kingdom and pose a threat to British nationals and our allies. I called for its proscription last year on 25 April, 23 May, 9 June, 7 July, 15 November and 21 December, and on 26 January this year.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I have not spoken on the Bill before, and I appreciate that we are very near the end of it, but I am moved to stand by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which, as it is written, I support.
I have only voted against the Government once and, in retrospect, I think that was a mistake, in that I got confused about what the legislation said. But in this particular instance there is an opportunity for us to stand up and say that the IRGC is an organisation that should be proscribed. It is clear that large parts of government and MPs, including the Tory MPs referenced, believe that, and it is clear that a group of people in the Foreign Office take a different view. That is not a new position. I appreciate that my noble friend is a Home Office Minister and does not have a Foreign Office Minister with him but, none the less, an inflection moment is in front of us. I hope that my noble friend the Minister might find a way of supporting this amendment or explaining how he will satisfy the questions raised tonight.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Leigh led the way, and I shall follow. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I am one of the two Members of this House who have been proscribed by the Iranian regime and the IRGC, and I have consistently called for it to be proscribed by the Government.
I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said and, if there is an issue with the organisation being part of the Government, how were we able, when Sajid Javid was Home Secretary, to proscribe Hezbollah, which had Members of Parliament in Lebanon? This was always the argument against it, but it was done because it was the right thing to do. I remind noble Lords that Hezbollah and Hamas, which we all proscribed, are in fact the unruly children of the parent body—the IRGC, which needs to be proscribed.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord Leigh, as well as my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. He is indeed a friend, but I disagree with the conclusion he reached today. I want to support the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, if he puts the amendment to a vote in the House. I salute the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for the work he has done on both the IRGC and the Wagner Group; like him, I have seen the consequences of their actions in many parts of the world. I think that proscription is the right thing to do in some circumstances, and I believe that it is right in these circumstances.
Just before the debate on this amendment, I was at a committee meeting upstairs in Committee Room 9, where a young Iranian woman was speaking, during this special week celebrating the rights of women, about the slogan which has been used so often in the protests: “Freedom, Life and Women”. This young woman described atrocities that had occurred to her friends and her own personal experiences. She asked what we were doing about the IRGC and why the television broadcaster Iran International has had to leave this country and go to the United States because it is not safe to operate in west London. How can that be? How can it be that BBC Persian service personnel are constantly harassed as a result of doing their job, even though Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the freedom to transmit ideas and opinions? That freedom is not permitted by the theocracy in Iran.
As the noble Lord, Lord Polak, said, he and I have been sanctioned, along with Tom Tugendhat MP, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred. This is trivial in comparison to the things that happen to Iranian people and to what we have seen happening to people in the protests in Iran, which are truly shocking. It is trivial when you think about the export of drones from Iran to Russia that are now pouring down on the people of Ukraine. If we fail to take this kind of action—indeed the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and I asked this question in your Lordships’ House back on 18 January, after Alireza Akbari, a British citizen, was executed—what has to happen before they are proscribed? We asked it again on 23 February, in the Moses Room during a Question for Short Debate I tabled about relations between Iran and the United Kingdom. We specifically asked about the division between the Foreign Office and the Home Office and about what was impeding a decision being taken on this matter.
I know the Minister quite well now, and I admire and respect him. I do not expect him to give us a lot of cant from the Dispatch Box, but I hope that he will take back to the Government the feelings of so many of us in this House today who want to support the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for the reasons he expressed so well.
Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I have considerable sympathy for what he says in view of the appalling behaviour of the IRGC. However, this amendment, as I understand it, would open the door to the proscription of state organisations, with proscription having originally been envisaged as a mechanism principally to bear down on non-state organisations.
I wonder therefore whether the Minister, when he responds, could clarify whether the proscription of state organisations brings with it unintended consequences that would be potentially quite difficult. For instance, will we say that anybody who is a member of a hostile intelligence service—which might be proscribed—is, by definition, committing an offence? What will that do, for instance, to intelligence liaison with people who are hostile to us, which sometimes happens? Does it create problems which would not be created for a non-state organisation, because these organs will be part of a very considerably bigger state entity with which we may have to engage at some level?
I am neither in favour with nor against the amendment. I am not quite sure exactly how it would work, and I would be very grateful if the Minister could clarify those aspects.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this very brief debate.
I think it would be helpful to give a brief overview of the concept of proscription as outlined in Part 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Put simply, proscription can play an important role in degrading the ability of terrorist organisations to operate effectively, and it sends a strong message that the UK is a hostile operating environment for such groups. The Terrorism Act 2000 gives the Home Secretary the power to proscribe a group if she has a reasonable belief that it is currently concerned in terrorism and it is proportionate to do so. The amendment seeks to replicate this within an explicit state threats context and requires that the Government develop and publish appropriate draft legislation.
The Home Secretary’s decisions on proscription can be legally challenged. As such, those decisions are supported by a comprehensive, evidence-led process which involves close consultation with other government departments and partners. This House will fully appreciate that developing a state threats proscription power will need to be considered fully.
Before I go on, I will refer to the IRGC, as it has come up in all contributions. I remind the House that the United Kingdom already sanctions the IRGC in its entirety. The separate list of proscribed terrorist organisations is kept under very careful review, but we do not routinely comment on whether an organisation is or is not under consideration for proscription.
In response to the illustrative points from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on whether there is a legislative gap in this area, I say that the National Security Bill creates a wide range of offences, tools and powers to counter state threats activity. In many respects, they cover very similar ground to a proscription-like power. For example, any person materially assisting a foreign intelligence service in their UK-related activities would commit an offence under Clause 3. Under the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme in Part 3, the Government could require the registration of all activities being conducted with those specified under the scheme. The Government will, with the agreement of Parliament, be able to specify a foreign power, part of a foreign power or an entity controlled by a foreign power. That means that those who are in arrangements with such organisations must register their activities or risk prosecution. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to my right honourable friend in the other place, the Security Minister, and I know that he is reassured by this.
However, as the Government have previously set out, we see the Bill as forming a new baseline for state threats legislation from which the statute will inevitably build over time as the threat evolves and diversifies. I am therefore grateful to the noble Lord for raising the issue and giving us the opportunity to debate it. I reassure him that I understand the reasons behind the amendment and the concern about the activities of state groups such as the IRGC. The Government of course share the noble Lord’s concerns, as was made clear in the Government’s statements on Iran International —to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, also referred—which highlighted the potentially lethal operations of the IRGC taking place in the UK.
The amendment raises an important question of whether more needs to be done in this space, and I can reassure all noble Lords that this is a question that the Government are already considering carefully. The Government are committed to tackling all forms of state threats and to ensuring that our police and security services have the right powers to keep the UK safe.
Given, as I have said, that the measures in the Bill already have a similar effect in the state threats context to that achieved through the proscription for terrorism, we need to fully consider, alongside our operational partners, whether and how additional tools such as a state threats proscription power would add to the offences and measures in the Bill. We are committed to ensuring that any future legislation we pursue in this area has maximum effect.
Returning to the amendment itself, while it does not seek to set the ultimate scope of any legislative provision, I am afraid I am unable to accept an amendment that too tightly constrains our thinking in this important area. Linking proscription to hostile activity as defined in Schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 would need careful consideration. I very much take on board the points of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, on this and on the scope. While that definition was considered suitable for that legislation, a different approach was taken in the National Security Bill, reflecting the differing nature of the tools and powers it contains. I would not want to pre-empt what might work best in the context of a potential proscription-like power. Furthermore, it is possible that to deliver an operational benefit, the tool may need to be created in a different way, and as such proposing a link to existing proscription processes may be unhelpful.
For these reasons, the Government cannot accept this amendment as drafted. I am also going to have disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Purvis: I am unable to comment on the Wagner Group; I am not qualified to do so. I hope the noble Lord is reassured that the Government are already looking carefully at this area and will therefore consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his response. Of course the Government are carefully considering this. I do not for one moment believe that they are not thinking about or carefully considering it—that would be an insult to the British Government. Of course they are concerned about national security and worried about various issues, including the one before us. That is a given. I have never accused the Government of not being concerned about it, of not considering it, of not deliberating on it, of not thinking about what they should do.
My amendment is saying that there is a real problem at the heart of government because the Foreign Office is blocking what the Home Office wants to do. There was not a word about that from the Minister; not a word about the fact that the Foreign Office is saying, “You cannot use existing legislation because it means that the IRGC”, to use that as an example, “is a government agency and not within the definition of a terrorist organisation under the legislation as drafted”. That is the core of it.
The noble Lords, Lord Leigh, Lord Polak, Lord Alton, and others who have spoken are saying that if there is a legislative problem, which the Foreign Office thinks there is, sort it out or come before this Chamber and say, “We do not want to proscribe the IRGC. We do not want to take that sort of action”. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to argue. “We do not want to proscribe the IRGC because we think the better way of sorting this problem out is to maintain open communications with the Iranian regime, to talk to them, to embrace them. We are not going to take any hard action against them because we think that undermines the policy objectives of the British Government.” It is a perfectly reasonable policy position, but I do not think that that is what is going on. I think the Government are having a row. I think there is a clash between the Foreign Office and the Home Office, and I am on the side of the Home Office. The IRGC should be proscribed, and I think that is what the majority of people in this Chamber, and in the other place, think. If so, it is the Government—or part of the Government—who are the problem, and my Amendment 195 gives them a legislative vehicle to sort it out.
What sort of a response is it, on something as serious as this, to say it is a drafting problem and “I did my best with it”? If there is a drafting problem, the Government can accept it and sort it out. They can change it, bringing in their battalions of lawyers, barristers even—I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—to sort it out. I was a teacher; I played football; I was a politician; I am not a lawyer, but that was the best I could do, because I know how important this is. The IRGC is operating within this country, to the extent that MI5 and others are having to foil terrorist plots. It forced a TV station to shut down, and the Government’s reaction to my amendment is to say, “There is a drafting problem with it”. It really is not acceptable.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, is right in saying that there is a balance to be struck. Well, strike a balance by accepting Amendment 195, sorting the legislation out and allowing the will of this Parliament to be expressed through its directly and properly elected Government. It is saying to the Government that the IRGC is simply and utterly unacceptable. I do not care if the legislation says there is a problem with defining it. It is a terrorist organisation. “No, it is not”, because Schedule 58 to some Act somewhere says it is not. That is ridiculous. It is the tail wagging the dog. The IRGC is causing damage in our society and the Foreign Office is blocking this, according to the Times and other media outlets, because its officials are saying there is a definition problem because it is a government agency.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, is right that this takes us into new territory. It does, and there are problems, but all I am saying is that it cannot be an excuse for the British Government to say, “We are not going to proscribe the IRGC because the Foreign Office says there is a problem with it being defined as a terrorist organisation when it is a government agency”. What do we say to people? Bring it down from these heady clouds of the House of Lords Chamber. Bring it down to the fact that terrorist plots are having to be foiled by our security services because of its actions. An international Iranian TV station has been forced out of our country: the United Kingdom cannot guarantee the safety of people who work for a TV station, in the face of actions by the IRGC and the people who support it, and the British Government prevaricate on whether to proscribe it. It is unbelievable.
The Government are whipping their Members to vote against that proscription and the Liberal Democrats, for their own reasons, are going to abstain. So, we are going to have people voting against and abstaining on the proscription of a body that poses a very real threat to our country. Good luck with explaining that. Good luck with explaining to people why that is something Parliament should accept and why my amendment should fail. “A drafting error”. “Not properly written”. Goodness me, is that the best we can do? I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“ScheduleAmendments of Terrorism Act 20001 (1) Section 41 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (arrest without warrant) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (3)(b)—(a) for the words from “Schedule 7” to “2019,” substitute “a provision listed in subsection (3A)”;(b) for “examination under that Schedule” substitute “detention under that provision”.(3) After subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Those provisions are—(a) section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;(b) Article 26 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12));(c) Schedule 7;(d) section 1 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 (asp 1);(e) Part 1 of Schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019;(f) section 27 of the National Security Act 2022.”(4) After subsection (8) insert—“(8ZA) Subsection (8A) applies where— (a) a person is detained under this section in hospital, or(b) a person detained under this section is removed to hospital because the person needs medical treatment.”(5) In subsection (8A)—(a) for the words before paragraph (a) substitute “Where this subsection applies”;(b) in paragraph (a) after “hospital or” insert “(where this subsection applies by virtue of subsection (8ZA)(b))”;(c) in paragraph (b) after “hospital or” insert “(where this subsection applies by virtue of subsection (8ZA)(b))”.2 (1) Schedule 5 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (terrorist investigations) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 3 (power to search premises within cordoned area)—(a) in sub-paragraph (1) for the words from “Subject” to “superintendent” substitute “A constable”;(b) in sub-paragraph (2) for the words from “who” to “paragraph” substitute “may exercise the power in sub-paragraph (1) only”.(3) In paragraph 15 (search and seizure in urgent cases: England, Wales and Northern Ireland)—(a) at the end of sub-paragraph (1) insert “(subject to sub-paragraph (1A))”;(b) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) An order under this paragraph giving the authority which may be given by a search warrant under paragraph 11 does not authorise a constable to retain confidential journalistic material.(1B) “Confidential journalistic material” means material which is excluded material by virtue of section 11(1)(c) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.”(4) After paragraph 15 insert—“15A “(1) This paragraph applies where confidential journalistic material is seized by virtue of an order under paragraph 15 giving the authority which may be given by a search warrant under paragraph 11.(2) A constable may apply to a Circuit judge for the issue of a warrant under this paragraph.(3) An application under sub-paragraph (2) must be made as soon as reasonably practicable after the material is seized.(4) The judge may grant an application under sub-paragraph (2) if satisfied that conditions 1 to 3 are met.(5) Condition 1 is that the warrant is sought for the purposes of a terrorist investigation.(6) Condition 2 is that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the material is likely to be of substantial value, whether by itself or with other material, to a terrorist investigation.(7) Condition 3 is that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest that the material should be retained having regard to the benefit likely to accrue to the terrorist investigation if the material is retained.(8) A warrant under this paragraph is a warrant authorising the retention of confidential journalistic material.(9) A warrant under this paragraph may impose conditions on the retention and use of the material.(10) If the judge does not grant an application for the issue of a warrant under this paragraph in relation to any of the material to which the application relates, the judge may direct that the material is—(a) returned to the person from whom it was seized, or (b) destroyed.(11) “Confidential journalistic material” has the same meaning as in paragraph 15.”(5) In paragraph 18 (application to Northern Ireland) before paragraph (f) insert—“(ea) the reference in paragraph 15(1B) to section 11(1)(c) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is to be taken as a reference to Article 13(1)(c) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12)),”(6) In paragraph 31 (search and seizure in urgent cases: Scotland)—(a) at the end of sub-paragraph (1) insert “(subject to sub-paragraph (1A)).”;(b) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) An order under this paragraph does not authorise a constable to retain confidential journalistic material.(1B) “Confidential journalistic material” has the same meaning as in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (see section 264(6) and (7) of that Act).”(7) After paragraph 31 insert—“31A “(1) This paragraph applies where confidential journalistic material is seized by virtue of an order under paragraph 31.(2) The procurator fiscal may apply to a sheriff for the issue of a warrant under this paragraph.(3) An application under sub-paragraph (2) must be made as soon as reasonably practicable.(4) The sheriff may grant an application under sub-paragraph (2) if satisfied that conditions 1 to 3 are met.(5) Condition 1 is that the warrant is sought for the purposes of a terrorist investigation.(6) Condition 2 is that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the material is likely to be of substantial value, whether by itself or with other material, to a terrorist investigation.(7) Condition 3 is that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest that the material should be retained having regard to the benefit likely to accrue to the terrorist investigation if the material is retained.(8) A warrant under this paragraph is a warrant authorising the retention of confidential journalistic material.(9) A warrant under this paragraph may impose conditions on the retention and use of the material.(10) If the sheriff does not grant an application for the issue of a warrant under this paragraph in relation to any of the material to which the application relates, the sheriff may direct that the material is—(a) returned to the person from whom it was seized, or(b) destroyed.(11) “Confidential journalistic material” has the same meaning as in paragraph 31.””Member's explanatory statement
The amendments to section 41 of the Terrorism Act reflect provision in Clause 27 of the Bill. The amendments to paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 amend powers to authorise searches. The remaining amendments to Schedule 5 restrict powers to retain confidential journalistic material to reflect provision in Schedule 2 to the Bill.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (c. 25)
10 (1) Schedule 3 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (exceptions to the exclusion of certain matters from legal proceedings) is amended as follows.(2) After paragraph 8 insert—“Proceedings under Part 2 of the National Security Act 20238A (1) Section 56(1) does not apply in relation to—(a) any proceedings which are relevant proceedings within the meaning of Part 2 of the National Security Act 2023 (see section 63(1) of that Act), or(b) any proceedings arising out of any proceedings within paragraph (a).(2) But sub-paragraph (1) does not permit the disclosure of anything to—(a) any person, other than the Secretary of State, who is or was a party to the proceedings, or(b) any person who—(i) represents such a person for the purposes of the proceedings, and(ii) does so otherwise than by virtue of an appointment as a special advocate under Schedule 10 to the National Security Act 2023.”(3) In paragraph 20(2) (proceedings for certain offences)—(a) after paragraph (h) insert—“(ha) an offence under section 1 or 3 of the National Security Act 2023 relating to any information, document or other article which, or an offence under section 12 of that Act relating to any asset which—(i) incorporates, or relates to, the content of any intercepted communication or any secondary data obtained from a communication, or(ii) tends to suggest that any interception-related conduct has or may have occurred or may be going to occur;(hb) an offence under section 18 of the National Security Act 2023 in relation to an offence falling within paragraph (ha);”(b) in paragraph (i), for “(h)” substitute “(ha)”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes consequential amendments to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
“Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 (c. 3)
10 In paragraph 62 of Schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 (review of Schedule 3 by Investigatory Powers Commissioner) omit—(a) sub-paragraphs (1) to (5);(b) sub-paragraphs (7) and (8).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment omits provision for the review of Schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. It is superseded by new Clause (Reviews: general), which provides for reviews of Schedule 3 by the independent reviewer appointed to review Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(za) regulations under section 64(1B);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the affirmative procedure to apply to regulations under Clause 64(1B), which is inserted by Lord Sharpe’s amendment to Clause 64, page 45, line 19.
“(aa) regulations under section 67(3B);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the affirmative procedure to apply to regulations under Clause 67(3B), which is inserted by Lord Sharpe’s amendment to Clause 67, page 46, line 36.
“(ab) regulations under section 79(1)(a);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the affirmative procedure to apply to regulations under Clause 79(1)(a) (provision about the publication of information provided to the Secretary of State under Clause 74 or 75).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the additional regulation making powers in relation to specified persons conferred by Lord Sharpe’s amendments to Clause 64, page 45, line 19 and Clause 67, page 46, line 36.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the new Schedule inserted by Lord Sharpe before Schedule 17.
Arrangement of Business
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, as this Question for Short Debate is now the last business, it will stretch to 90 minutes. Apart from the opening speech and the speech from my noble friend the Minister, all noble Lords now have four minutes.
Israel and Palestine
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking, with international partners, to calm the violence and build a lasting peace between the government of Israel and the Palestinian people.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, in 1962 I had the great privilege of spending a term studying in Jerusalem. Signs of conflict were everywhere; there was barbed wire across the streets and pockmarks in the walls made by bullets from recent fighting. The time was tense and difficult. But now, more than 60 years later, the situation is even worse—the tension greater, the violence more bitter. Some of us will remember that the two great political issues in 1962 were the Cold War and apartheid. We could see no end to the Cold War, but in 1989 the Berlin Wall was torn down. We did not expect apartheid to come to an end without massive bloodshed, but in 1994 Nelson Mandela was elected peacefully president of South Africa. Is it not a terrible indictment of leadership on all sides and the whole international community that still nothing very much has happened, and that the situation is in fact much worse now than it was in 1962? The hopes of Oslo in 1993 and the hopes of so many since then have come to absolutely nothing.
It is understandable that the eyes of the world have been elsewhere this year—on Ukraine, the women of Afghanistan and Iran, and the earthquakes in Syria and Turkey—but during this time tension in Israel has risen and violence has increased. In January, a Palestinian boy throwing stones in the West Bank was killed. Then in a raid by security forces, nine Palestinians were killed in Jenin. On the same day, a 13 year-old boy shot seven Israelis outside a synagogue in east Jerusalem. The following day, rockets were fired by Hamas from the Gaza Strip and there was a further exchange of fire. A few days later, there was a major raid in Nablus, in which 10 Palestinians were killed and more than 100 injured. A few days after that, a Palestinian killed two Israeli settlers. This was followed by settlers running amok, torching homes and cars, with the IDF apparently unwilling or unable to stop it. Once again, families are left bereaved, young Palestinians are left even more desperate, and more Israeli peace-lovers are left in despair at the present Government.
After that outbreak of violence, Israeli and Palestinian delegates made a joint commitment to take immediate steps to end it. This followed talks in Aqaba between the parties, alongside the United States and Egyptian officials. The announcement said that Palestinian and Israeli sides
“affirmed their commitment to all previous agreements between them, and to work towards just and lasting peace”.
Both sides also committed to immediately working to end unilateral measures for a period of three to six months, which included an Israeli commitment to stop discussion of any new settlement units for four months and to stop the authorisation of any outposts for six months. The parties agreed to reconvene in Egypt in March this year—this month—to determine progress made towards these goals. However, this statement was immediately called into question by some members of the Israeli Government, including Mr Netanyahu himself, who denied that there would be a settlement freeze or any kind of pause.
My first question for the Minister is: what role are our own Government playing in this process? Is he in a position to clarify what has been agreed and what progress, if any, has been made with a view to the reconvened meeting later this month?
The reason I asked for this debate is not just the recent level of violence, severe though it has been, but because there will continue to be violence unless there is hope. At the moment, there is no hope. Where is the hope in the situation? What sign of hope can be given to young Palestinians, or to those Israelis who have lost their family or friends and who have sincerely wanted and worked for a solution? Studies of those who survived harsh imprisonment during World War Two showed that the people most likely to survive were those who had something to live for—for example, a hope of seeing a loved one again. Without hope, people become desperate. Since Oslo in 1993, the hope has been held out of a two-state solution. Recently, our Government have once again committed themselves to that solution, as have various other international bodies, the UN and the EU. However, at the same time, I have read—as I am sure your Lordships have—commentators saying that the two-state solution is dead and that nothing will now revive the peace process. Is it really dead? If it is, what hope can be given?
The idea of a single state, once dismissed by most people, has surfaced again. Is this a serious idea—a single state with equality for all its citizens? In a recent article, Jonathan Freedland, while not arguing for this, nevertheless pointed out that overall turnout in the November election topped 70% but among Israeli Arabs it was just 53.2%. He argued that if Arabs had voted in the same numbers as Jews, Netanyahu would not be Prime Minister. He suggested that to remedy this will require,
“first, a wholesale change in mindset on the part of the mainstream Israeli left, one that at last listens to Palestinian demands for equality inside the green line and an end to occupation beyond it. That could, in turn, prompt a sea change among Palestinian-Israelis, a recognition that a de facto boycott of Israel’s political institutions might have made sense when a separate Palestinian state seemed on the horizon, but makes no sense now. It only strengthens those bent on making their lives worse.”
I am, of course, aware of the arguments on this issue, but I will not enter into them now. My point is about the total lack of hope in anything at the moment. I believe it would be quite wrong simply for the international community to shrug its shoulders and assume that nothing can be done. While the recent meeting in Jordan to see what might be done in the immediate term to reduce the level of violence is to be welcomed, it is not enough.
I recently asked a friend living in Jerusalem if he could find any hope in the present situation. He wrote that he looked to the individuals committed to peace and reconciliation, “the mother of an Israeli soldier killed at a checkpoint in the Second Intifada joining a group of bereaved from both sides of conflict and becoming best friends with a Palestinian man whose daughter was killed at a checkpoint by an Israeli soldier, or the man at the Tent of Nations who is in the longest-running legal dispute to keep the family olive farm despite beatings, intimidation and Kafkaesque legal dealings”. His mantra was: “We refuse to be enemies”. These are people who belong to the Parents Circle-Families Forum—PCFF—a body that I have long admired. This group is made up of parents, Jewish and Palestinian, who have all lost family members in the conflict. However, apparently even the PCFF is being threatened with tough new restrictions on its activities by Israel’s recently elected coalition Government. They are planning to curtail the organisation’s access to high schools where, for years, bereaved Israeli and Palestinian families have been allowed to meet groups of teenagers before they are called up for any service. If this is the case, I hope that our own Government will vigorously protest.
So, in the name of those Israeli and Palestinian parents, we cannot allow the present situation to continue fluctuating between simmering violence and its inevitable explosion forever. Meanwhile, as we are all aware, we have to face the fact that, as settlements continue to grow in number and size, the viability of a Palestinian state gets more and more called into question; the Palestinian position, already weak, becomes even weaker; and young people on both sides become even more desperate.
Let us have some honesty in the international community. Is the two-state solution dead? If not, let us have some real initiatives for reviving it. In 1978, that good man President Carter, who is now in his last days in a hospice, called together Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat to agree a framework for peace in the Middle East. Where is the Jimmy Carter for our time? We cannot simply shrug and resign ourselves to the fact that this will go on forever. A new initiative is needed. I beg to move.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, let me be the first to congratulate the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, on the well-worded title of this debate and on his opening remarks. He is a most distinguished cleric, and it is very fitting that a cleric should choose to put a plea for peace in the title. He will be aware that one of the core prayers we recite in the Jewish religion, which some people recite three times a day, has the words:
“He who makes peace in his high places, may he make peace upon us and upon all Israel”.
Peace is the most sought after of all man’s objectives in our prayers. So I am grateful to him for moving this debate.
I am also grateful to the authorities for moving it from yesterday, when I believe it was originally scheduled to take place, because yesterday was the Jewish festival of Purim, where, incidentally, and most unusually, a requirement is to drink a lot of alcohol. So it would not have been a great day for me to be standing up in your Lordships’ House. As with many Jewish festivals, we celebrated the fact that evil people did not overthrow and kill the local Jewish population, as they sought to do. We were saved by a clever bit of manoeuvring by Esther, a Jewess who achieved favour in high places. It is a longer story, but we will leave it at that.
None the less, Jewish people have always been on the defensive and, not surprisingly, concerned for their own survival. When I was in Manchester city centre recently with my youngest daughter, we passed a demonstration with a red, green, black and white flag. They were chanting, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”. My daughter asked me, “What does that mean?” I had to explain to her that this was a group of people on UK soil seeking to wipe out the Jewish state of Israel. Israel faces similar threats now, some organised and promoted by Hamas and PFLP, and some random, such as the killing last month of the brothers, Hillel and Yagael Yaniv.
I move the point of the debate. What can be done? I know Jerusalem best, because I am chairman of the Jerusalem Foundation in the UK. I will be there next week, running a 10k around the city, with citizens from every background—Jewish, Muslim, Christian and no faith—all running together. It is a most uplifting experience. We are working hard to make Jerusalem a better place. I am not convinced that the UK Government, or any Government, can do as much as we would like in the cause of peace. It is the people, the individuals, who can do so much.
We are working hard to calm tensions there. For example, with British donors’ money, we are building two large community sports centres and swimming pools in East Jerusalem. British donors are paying for a project with the municipality to train new Arabic-speaking social workers, who will help thousands of Arab families.
We continue to abhor the fact that at least 31 Palestinian schools are named after terrorists and, likewise, that an Israeli Minister seems to call for the wipeout of a Palestinian village. This was rightly condemned by the head of the IDF and others in Israel.
Initiatives such as those taken by British donors, as I have described, can make a difference. In a recent poll conducted by the Washington Institute in East Jerusalem, half of the Palestinians asked said that, if they had to make a choice, they would prefer to become citizens of Israel than of the Palestinian state. Their recent experience of access to Israel’s healthcare, social welfare, benefits and jobs is making a difference. We need to ensure that this direction of travel is continued.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for introducing this important debate in such a fair, if somewhat sobering, way. It is a sobering topic.
Once again, the vicious cycle of violence has rapidly spun out of control: there have been 550 terrorist attacks, and too many Israeli and Palestinian deaths, in the last 12 months alone. It is easy to get involved in the blame game. Heaven knows there is enough blame to go around—we might hear some tonight. Tit for tat has taken over. Reconciliation has been replaced by retribution and revenge after generations of mistrust and antipathy. So is there anything at all that we in the international community can do that will influence those on the ground?
As we have heard, Israel agreed to stop all West Bank settlement activity for six months at the recent meeting of security officials in Aqaba. Of course, that was immediately derided by Hamas and right-wingers in the Israeli Government. But that should not detract from what was a remarkable step for the first time in many years.
Sadly, I fear that brave speeches by the US and UK ambassadors at the UN have had little effect on the ground. Of course, we should not give up, despite the limited response. So where can any external influence have any effect? The USA has historically had some influence on Israel. Clearly, we should be supporting that, and our friends in the Middle East—Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE—who may have been, and one hopes should be, able to influence the Palestinians. We should influence both sides.
However, we seem to have ignored one resource, which should be called upon now: the Arab citizens of Israel, who make up over 20% of the population. We have heard a little about them. They overwhelmingly want to see a two-state solution, according to all of the polls, but they live uncomfortably between the two sides. They could form an invaluable link as go-betweens between the warring parties. Have our Government had any discussions with the Israeli authorities about encouraging them to engage fully with their Israeli Arab friends, many of whom occupy high office in Israeli society?
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, having read the extensive coverage in the newspapers over the weekend, I feel that it is important to point out that Israel today has the most extreme Government in its history. Haaretz calls it a “Government of darkness”, as right-wing politicians from parties that are overtly Jewish supremacist, anti-Arab, anti-women and homophobic dominate it. I was impressed by the accounts given in the Guardian on Friday by Simon Schama and Margaret Hodge, documenting some of the things happening under the new Israeli Government. These extremist Ministers now have major powers over the Occupied Territories, as authority has been transferred from military to civilian rule, contravening international law on occupation. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us with the Government’s view on that.
A Haaretz editorial also states:
“In light of the fact that there is no intention of granting civil rights to the millions of Palestinians living in the West Bank, the result of the agreement is a formal, full-fledged apartheid regime.”
Some of us from Parliament went on a recent visit—not so recent now, it was actually in November. I have to say that I was impressed by those on both sides who were working together for solutions and peace. For example, there were the heroic doctors working in the underresourced Palestinian hospital in Jerusalem. There was the courage of relief and grass-roots support agencies, many of which are now banned organisations—and many of them actually Israeli—which were also working for peace. I pay tribute to all of them for the work that they do and the risks they take with their own well-being and that of their families. There was the determination of a family in the Hebron hills living in a cave, their previous homes having been demolished so many times that they believed that that was the only way they could remain living in their current home.
But in spite of this, a massive expansion of settlements is planned, even though there is increased settler violence, which we were told has certainly been ignored by the authorities. In the Observer on Sunday there was an article about an olive farmer. It was headlined:
“They ransack our village for sport.”
That is one farmer’s story of settler violence. Palestinian homes have been demolished and when we were there a primary school funded by foreign aid was demolished to accommodate the settlers’ demands for more land. There is a huge sense of injustice as families have who lived there for generations are evicted to give more land to incoming settlers who rampage their villages.
I agree with the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, that hope is very much lacking at present, certainly in the Occupied Territories. I hope that we here can promote action by our own Government that can work to support change. Humanitarian support and medical supplies are urgently needed. Funding for the relief agencies and grass-roots organisations which deliver the aid and support is also needed. I hope that the example of Simon Schama and Margaret Hodge will mean that supporters of Israel who want to see it prosper will see that what is being done at the moment is counter to that. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, talked earlier about the work that goes on in Jerusalem. I know much good work of this kind that goes on, but it is ruined when we get the provocative statements and the ambitions, particularly of the Ministers, Gvir and Smotrich.
As I said, I hope that the Government will lead diplomatic pressure where violations of human rights and international law are taking place on both sides and that we can, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said, find some leader to reinitiate the peace process and work for a just and lasting peace.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, it would be quite wrong if this House simply overlooked the worsening security situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories, so my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries is to be congratulated on obtaining this debate.
To those like me who have spent a substantial part of their professional life working for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine dispute and working to give effect to UN Security Council Resolution 242, which was, of course, drafted and sponsored by Britain, and its successor resolutions, these are dispiriting days. There is an Israeli Government who have turned their back on that solution, a Palestinian Authority which has no new contribution to make, activists in Gaza whose sole response to any rise in tension is to fire rockets into Israel, and a slide, once again, towards violence right across the region in both Israel and the Occupied Territories.
It is easy to despair, but the hard fact is that there will be no stability and security in that region on the present basis—no number of Abraham accords, no amount of crackdowns by Israeli forces in the Occupied Territories, no expansion of illegal settlements will bring that security and stability about.
What should Britain with its historic responsibilities for the state of the region be doing in these unpromising circumstances? Faced with Israeli intransigence to even talking about a two-state solution, we should make it clear that we will legitimise nothing less than that. We should do so by recognising a Palestinian state. Plenty of others have already done so.
Our policy of endless prevarication over recognition is a bankrupt one. It was defensible while negotiations were under way—and I myself defended it for many long years—but no longer even faintly credible. Will that bring about a solution? Of course not. But it would show that we will not be a party to any abdication of responsibility for the present drift toward tit-for-tat violence and a rejection of international law.
In addition, I hope we really will sustain our humanitarian support for UNRWA and for the suffering people in the Occupied Territories and Gaza. Allowing cuts in our aid programme to fall on them would be both shameful and counterproductive, and I hope the Minister can give us the latest FCDO commitments on those programmes which have been so important over the years.
We should engage at every level with the Government of Israel and with its people to demonstrate that we continue to value their state and their democracy, however much we may disagree with some of their present policies. That is no easy path to tread, but it is still worth while in my view.
Lord Stone of Blackheath (Non-Afl)
My Lords, all these problems in the Middle East are my fault. In 1967, I was a volunteer in the Six Day War, so I started all this mess. However, in the following decades, I have been trying to help make peace. At Marks & Spencer, we encouraged Israeli manufacturers to work with Egyptian, Jordanian and Lebanese companies and become partners with one another. With the help of Tony Blair, I got Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury’s and Tesco to buy homegrown foods and textiles from the West Bank and Gaza to help them to grow. But those and many other projects did not create peace either, so I am still to blame.
I have three questions for the Minister. First, will the UK Government recognise the state of Palestine? This would then mean that rather than a recognised state—Israel—trying to negotiate with a disparate people, the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza, you would have two states negotiating about their borders and citizenship et cetera, and it would make it more fair and viable. It could change everything if our country, that issued the Balfour Declaration and was a mandate authority, would agree to extend recognition to a Palestinian state.
Secondly, will the UK make good on its commitment as the first country on earth to endorse the concept of creating an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace, which can engage a new generation, at scale, in the project of peacebuilding rather than allowing them to fall into their current despair and enmity, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, described?
Thirdly, will the UK signal its strong opposition to any legislation that taxes, chills or delegitimises the work of Israeli-Palestinian civil society, which this Israeli Government are threatening to do? Also, in May at the G7 leaders’ communique in Japan, let us please push for language that clearly shows to the governing authorities in the region that civil society is a “red line” for the international community.
Finally, I suggest that the Minister meets John Lyndon of the Alliance for Middle East Peace—ALLMEP—who is doing great work in the field; Gershon Baskin, who has been talking with both sides for decades, and Tony Klug, who has written many wise briefs on how to resolve these issues.
I close by mentioning the late Rabbi David Geffen, who died this weekend and was the founder of Loving Classroom, a project that is teaching children in Arabic, Hebrew and English in schools across the world to love, respect and befriend children on all sides. Can we support this project by adopting Loving Classroom in all schools in the UK, where it is already making a difference in several schools?
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my non-financial registered interest as president of Conservative Friends of Israel. I also pay tribute to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for obtaining this debate. I recall the wonderful work he did as chairman of the Council of Christians and Jews.
I am concerned about comments in a recent letter from the Foreign Secretary effectively boycotting an Israeli Minister. It is not about whether one agrees with Minister Ben-Gvir. We work with all elected Israeli politicians, and we must be very careful not to go down a route of suggesting that our support for Israel is somehow conditional on any individual politician.
Could we be holding Israel to a different standard from other countries? It seems that we are fine working with Prime Minister Meloni’s extreme right-wing Italian Government and with some kleptocracies and dictatorships, but working with elected officials who could be tried and found guilty in democratic Israel is somehow not fine.
No one wants an escalation of the recent troubles. The discussions in Aqaba that have been mentioned were important, and the comments by the Israeli Finance Minister have been universally condemned, led by Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Herzog, who stated that the idea of Israeli citizens taking the law into their own hands, rioting and committing violence against innocent people, is wrong. It will always be wrong.
The question posed by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, is about building a lasting peace between the Palestinian people and the Israeli people. He spoke eloquently, looking for hope. There is a peace train that has left the station and is making its way across the region. The Abraham Accords train has visited Manama in Bahrain. It has travelled through Dubai and Abu Dhabi in the UAE and meandered through the hills of Jerusalem in Israel. It has reached Rabat in Morocco, and the journey has continued to Khartoum in Sudan. It is possible that the train is making its way to Riyadh in Saudi Arabia.
I urge my noble friend the Minister to ensure that His Majesty’s Government will join the Negev Forum for regional co-operation, as has been suggested by my friend the Foreign Minister of Bahrain, who I met only last Friday. Can my noble friend tell me what we are doing to get that train to visit Ramallah? What are the Government doing to ensure that the Palestinians purchase a ticket to join this remarkable and exciting initiative? For the sake of all peoples in the region, and especially for their own children, the Palestinians must not miss the train and should be urged to get on board.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale (Lab)
My Lords, like others I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for procuring this debate and for the way he phrased the topic.
Does the Minister agree that the recent upsurge in violence in Israel and the Palestinian territories is a tragic reminder to us all of the need for a political process leading to a two-state solution? A further complicating factor now is the election in the only real democracy in the region, Israel, of the most right-wing and nationalist Government in its history.
Does he agree that there are barriers to peace outside the control of Israel or the Palestinians? First and foremost is Iran, a state sponsor, supplier and facilitator of terrorism, from Hezbollah in Lebanon to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip and cells in the West Bank. I know that my next question was discussed at the end of the Report debate on the Bill earlier this evening, but I will ask it again because it is far too important not to repeat it and repeat it again: when will the IRGC, the armed wing of Iran’s terrorism, be proscribed in the United Kingdom?
Given the UK’s deep and historic ties in the Middle East, it is disappointing that it was not even at the table in 2020 in negotiations on the normalisation of relations between Israel and four Arab states. What plans do the Government have, if any, to support further normalisation between Israel and the Arab world? Lastly, when will the UK contribute to the international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace and follow up its very warm words of support for the fund with a concrete contribution?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for this timely debate. For 45 years I have been a friend of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people—an expression I much prefer to “Jewish state”. It is a long story as to why I first connected with the country. Suffice it to say that it started by chance, as I am not Jewish and have no family connection to Israel. I found myself celebrating Purim in a kibbutz in March 1978. I have just looked it up on Wikipedia; it was 22 and 23 March 1978.
What attracted me and kept me engaged were the values of the State of Israel and its right, which I very strongly support, not only to exist but to exist in security, without its neighbours and others wishing and trying to wipe it off the map—so I have ended up as a vice-president of Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel. There is certainly inequality and discrimination within Israel against the Arab minority, but it is emphatically not an apartheid state. Israel is entitled to take military action by the IDF to defend itself and its citizens from attack and, although there have been excesses and wrongdoing by the IDF, the motivation for its action is qualitatively different from the terrorist attacks on civilians by Palestinian militants and the glorification of terror, including by the Palestinian Authority.
I am a friend of Israel but I am no friend of the present Prime Minister, Mr Netanyahu. I never have been, because I am a liberal and he is increasingly like Trump, as shown by the attempts to ram through highly controversial and self-serving changes to the courts. With an undemocratic and corrupt Palestinian Authority, both Israelis and Palestinians are very badly served at present. The present coalition Government Mr Netanyahu leads go way beyond even the tolerable, containing far-right extremists and racists, and they are perpetrating or being apologists for some utterly disgraceful actions and rhetoric about Palestinians and Arab Israelis. The Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel are appalled at the violent attacks by settlers on Palestinians in Hawara, and indeed any settler violence.
Israelis opposed to this far-right Government give me hope about rescuing the soul of their country, with thousands of protesters on the street every week. Prominent among them are members of the Liberal Democrats’ sister party, Yesh Atid, but people from all sections of Israeli society are taking part.
I first said almost 20 years ago that I believed that illegal settlements and being an occupying power were poisoning and politically corrupting Israel, as well as oppressing Palestinians. My visits to Israel and the West Bank last autumn confirmed my view, but even recognition of a Palestinian state does not obviate the need for negotiations. The route to peace and any hope of two states has to lie partly through economic and cultural co-operation and engagement, which is why I fervently oppose any boycott of Israel.
I support the Abraham Accords and was glad to join the call, which others have mentioned this evening, for the UK Government to work with partners to create an international fund for peace for Israelis and Palestinians. The national question between Jews and Palestinians is still just about solvable. I hope the Minister can give us hope of a solution.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, my noble and right reverend friend and I shared experience of the Middle East when we were both board members of Christian Aid. I am delighted to join him again in this debate and congratulate him on bringing up once again a very difficult subject.
I have previously spoken about humanitarian aid in the West Bank and Gaza, but this time I have chosen music. My wife chairs a charity that helps young Palestinian musicians, called PalMusic. Music provides a vital part in keeping hope and joy alive, even during these adverse conditions—first, by ensuring that the unique culture of Palestine continues to thrive; secondly, by giving young people the satisfaction of learning and acquiring other skills, such as working in teams and showing leadership; and thirdly, and not least, by bringing happiness to the community, not only to the young musicians but to others through their music. I have heard wonderful examples of this music.
This is the 10th anniversary of PalMusic, which was set up to support the Edward Said National Conservatory of Music in Ramallah. The conservatory was built around the vision of having a creative musical culture in every Palestinian home. Highlights have included a six-week UK tour by the Palestine Youth Orchestra; a long-distance learning programme for teachers and students; online concerts throughout the pandemic; and bursaries for musicians to attend degree courses in the UK. However, the difficulties of running a music school in an occupied territory are ever present and growing. For example, Israel has now made it nearly impossible for Palestinian institutions to secure visas for visiting teaching staff. The Israeli Government will have to think again.
We in the UK have a historic responsibility to find a political solution—and it is not the “peace train” that we have heard about this evening. We all need to work much harder to support Palestinian life and to end the oppression of the Palestinian people.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, and I too thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, for securing this important debate. Regardless of one’s perspective on the causes of this seemingly endless conflict, I find it impossible not to agree with the noble and right reverend Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that the current spiral of destruction is enough to make anyone who longs for peace in that region despair. For those who value every human life and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, are also committed to defending the integrity and security of Israel, the tragedy is compounded by growing anxiety—as others have said—that the extremism of a disproportionately powerful element in the new Government is both destabilising and potentially self-destructive of the Israeli dream.
Earlier today, I googled one word: “Israel”. What came up filled me with dismay: “Israel’s elite fighter pilots escalate judicial reform protest”; “Huwara attacked by settlers during Purim”; “Israeli attack wounds citizens as settlers and soldiers dance”. I am commenting not on the individual stories but on the direction of travel. It is the wrong direction—wrong for Israel and wrong for the world. At a time when Iran poses an existential threat to its very existence and, indeed, to world peace, we need Israel as never before to be united and strong, not weakened by extremism, whether on settlements or so-called “reforms” to the judiciary. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can help Israel to understand that it is too important a partner to be consumed by internal strife when its strategic leadership is so needed.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, once again and I congratulate the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, on securing this debate at a very important time. When I heard his reflections on 1962, I thought, “Is it really 30 years since I was not just at university with the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, attending lectures by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, but since I took my first trip to Israel?”
You could say that I travelled there when the state was at the apex of hope. We visited just as the Oslo Accords were becoming public, and I saw as a very young student what leadership and statecraft could do. They nearly found peace with a two-state solution. Thirty years later, when we see escalating violence, 14 fatal attacks, increasing violent rhetoric, and both sides escalating the threat of more violence, perhaps we are now, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, suggested, at the nadir of hope for Israel.
Almost every attack is obviously a personal tragedy for the families who have lost loved ones or have seen loved ones injured. They also represent a national tragedy for the State of Israel. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Polak, who alluded to this. It is a tragedy because, amidst the violence, Israel is potentially entering the most exciting stage in its history. Perhaps that is where we can try to find hope. As a new generation of Arab leaders no longer regards Israel as an enemy, and as those Arab leaders seek partnership and co-operation and mutual support in the economic growth of the region, surely it is the role of leadership and statecraft to nurture that kind of behaviour.
The Abraham Accords, as noble Lords have said, are in their infancy. They are fragile and delicate. That is why the escalating violence is such a threat. Of course Israel is right to stand up to domestic terrorism; every state has to protect its people. Ultimately, however, as a friend of Israel, when I look around and see friends demonstrating for peace—not just in Israel but around the world—we know that statecraft and leadership are the only way we are going to find peace. Does the Minister still believe in a two-state solution? What statecraft and leadership will he show to try to encourage our friends in Israel and Palestine to de-escalate the violence?
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for getting this debate on to the Order Paper and, in particular, for listing the horrific incidents, on both sides, which set the whole debate in context. I must declare my interest as President of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel. I do not need to say that it is unpaid, because obviously it is.
Yesterday, as has been said, was the Jewish festival of Purim, just out by an hour or so today. This is the story of a Hebrew woman in Persia—Esther—who thwarts the genocide of her people. It is stories like this and, more recently, the 800,000 Jews who fled Arab lands, and the horrors of the Holocaust, which are part of the Israel psyche today of “never again”.
Having said that, I want to make it clear that I am, like many Israelis, appalled at the violent attacks by settlers on Palestinians in Hawara. These actions go against Jewish values—and I speak as a Jew—teachings and the founding principles of the State of Israel. It is not all one-sided. There have been significant Israeli casualties of Palestinian terrorism in 2022 and 2023, including the two young Israeli men, referred to by earlier speakers, murdered just before the Hawara riots. Sadly, violence begets violence. The violence has to cease.
The UK Government must make it clear to the Palestinian Authority and the current Israeli Government that we expect an urgent de-escalation, which requires the PA and the Israeli Government to take strong action against any perpetrators of violence. The UK, through the Minister, should offer itself as an unbiased interlocutor for the peace talks. We are still the unbiased interlocutor, which the US is no longer. We should support the establishment of an international fund for peace, as outlined by the Alliance for Middle East Peace, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stone.
We must not lose sight of the fact that Israel is a democratic state, for Jew and non- Jew, where there is a free media and plenty—plenty—of internal critics who are against the current Government. Democracy does not always present a desirable outcome, but it does mean that the Government can and should take account of internal criticism, unlike the situation in the West Bank. The President of the Palestinian Authority has not faced an election for many, many years. My feeling, and the feeling in Israel and in the territories, is that President Abbas does not have support on the Palestinian street. If he does not, I have a question for the Minister and the Government. I personally am in favour of the creation of a Palestinian state, but will the Minister say how, in practical terms, the Government could see that happening when one side does not have the support of its people?
My noble friend Lady Janke gave the example of Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper. The important thing to me is that, in Israel, you can have a paper criticising the Government.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, called for hope and for a two-state solution. I join him in that wish.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for bringing this important debate before your Lordships’ House. I refer to my entry in the register of interests as I recently joined a field trip with Medical Aid for Palestinians in the West Bank during the February Recess, and to previous entries where I joined similar trips with Conservative Friends of Israel.
In the two minutes that I was originally allowed, I wanted to focus very much on our responsibility as an honest, and sometimes critical, friend to Israel. That is not in any way to distance myself from the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, has just made about the failures of the Palestinian Authority, which I endorse. I am a friend of Israel who wants the UK to continue its strong relations with that country, and who absolutely supports its right to exist and its continuing security. As we have already heard, we must never forget the memory within Israel of the obsession of some with removing it from the map.
I have often spoken in those terms in this House before, and my shared Scottish kinship with Lord Balfour makes me reflect very much on the creation of the Israeli state. However, as a friendly nation and ally, it is incumbent upon us, not least because of our historical responsibility, to use our influence to ensure that the Israel that we support is upholding its international obligations, and it is those on which I wish to dwell today.
We must support any talks and communication that try to stop the spiralling acts of violence that we have already seen this year and the rising tension within Israel and the Occupied Territories. However, I ask the Minister that we continue to raise in our discussions with Israel—as part of our commitment to international law, to Articles 55, 56 and 59 of the Geneva convention and to the Oslo accords—our opposition to the building of illegal settlements; our commitment to ensuring that the Palestinian people in areas B and C of the Occupied Territories have full access to education and health services; importantly, that we follow international law; and, as we witnessed did not happen in Huwara, that the IDF is fully empowered, and has the responsibility, to protect all civilians from violent attack or disruption.
It is important as well that we question and seek legal advice as a Government on the recent transfer of responsibilities for settlers from military jurisdiction to Israeli civilian responsibility. How does that square with our own opposition to the annexation of the West Bank in terms of responsibility for those settlements?
To be secure as well as to carry international support, Israel requires critical friends. Can the Minister confirm that we will continue to be one such friend?
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. I congratulate the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, on securing this important debate. While I agree with much of what he said—as he said, the situation is bleak and terrible—I am not sure I agree that it is completely hopeless. As we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Turnberg, Lord Polak and Lord Watson, and others, the Abraham accords are a remarkable achievement and a stunning breakthrough that would have been impossible to imagine just before they were announced. They show us that, even in the Middle East, positive change can happen very quickly and we must never give up hope. However bleak things are, the UK’s role must be to encourage negotiation, because that is the only route to a two-state solution and a peaceful and viable end to this terrible conflict.
The protests in Israel, now in their third month with hundreds of thousands taking part, remind us that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where not just protests like these but even the basic traditions of liberal democracy—pluralism, elections, equality and the rule of law—are even conceivable, let alone the very foundations and values of the state itself.
We have seen a terrible rise in violence over the last year, with civilians killed on both sides, starting with four Israeli civilians killed in Beersheba by a Palestinian supporter of ISIS. There have now been 13 fatal attacks by Palestinian terrorists, including seven people killed in a synagogue on Holocaust Memorial Day, one of them just a child. These attacks are not a reaction to the election of this new Government; they began under the previous left/right unity Government, which included for the first time an Israeli Arab party, and, sadly, as we have seen, they have continued under today’s very different Government.
We must be clear that there is never any justification for terrorism. Those responsible are the terrorists themselves. We should be clear that the deaths of any innocent Palestinian civilians in Israel’s counterterror operations are terrible and must be investigated. We must also recognise that there is no equivalence between indiscriminate terror attacks against civilians and attempts to arrest the terrorists responsible.
Ultimately, inflammatory rhetoric and appeals to extremes do nothing to help Palestinians or Israelis; they only entrench divisions and increase the violence. Instead, we need to see a resumption of the political process, however difficult that is, because two states remains the only solution and opinion polls still show that majorities on both sides support that objective. However, I do not agree that a Palestinian state can just be recognised or imposed unilaterally from outside—and it is counterproductive to suggest that it can be, because it suggests to Palestinians that there is a route to statehood which does not involve the hard work of negotiation, compromise and concessions.
The truth is that a Palestinian state will be achieved only through dialogue, negotiation and compromise by Israelis and Palestinians working together. The UK must do all it can to support that, with closer ties to Israel and Palestine, economic development, jobs and prosperity for the Palestinians and support for projects that bring people together on both sides to build trust and create the conditions for negotiations.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I wish I could echo the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Austin, but sadly I cannot. As we have heard this evening, instead of a more benign security environment in the Middle East, the opposite is true. Today’s environment might more accurately be termed a “new regional disorder”, underwritten by an “arc of instability” in the Middle East with the growing influence of Iran.
The landscape against which the Arab-Israeli conflict is viewed appears increasingly volatile and turbulent, contoured by myriad examples of violence and escalating conflicts which, over the past year, are no longer headline news here. No matter their origin, these conflicts can engulf us all, thanks to the pace of a rapidly globalising world. This is dangerous because it takes our eye off the escalation of tension and violence in the region at a time when it should be a top international priority, not one in the foreign policy shadows of the Ukraine conflict.
The multiplicity of new and continuing threats at times appears overwhelming: terrorism, conflict, insurgency. In this bleak and dystopian world, the liberal order, backed by strong, independent legal institutions, which are under question in Israel, and the democratic free-market prescriptions of the Washington consensus, are being challenged as never before—not least where a right-wing coalition with ultranationalists is seated in government against a background of increasing violence and a threat of a further Palestinian intifada.
While the eyes of the world are elsewhere, it is welcome that Israel has altered its settlement programme with a temporary cessation. At the same time, regrettably, more extremists are moving into Gaza and the West Bank, stoking tensions and trouble for the future. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, has indicated—if I can put his sentiments into my words—the running sore is festering badly and 2023 is likely to see the contagion erupt again. Against that backcloth, now is the time to step up our involvement, as many noble Lords have said, and seek to clear the political debris from the pathways to the two-state solution which, in my view, is in no way dead. It cannot die; it is the lifeline to peace.
I have only one question to put to the Minister, which is in the context of children. What more can the government do to support the UN’s efforts to help children, who pay the highest price as the violence escalates? Will he agree to increase our support both financially and in terms of qualified personnel to help the impacted children with psychosocial services, starting with the humanitarian family centres across the Gaza Strip, but encompassing all children in the region who have been victims of the horrors of violence?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I join others to thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for bringing this debate and for starting in such a measured way. It has been an extremely sombre debate but, as he indicated, we should not see conflict as inevitable. Therefore, we should not lose hope, even though it seems quite a long time ago—it was just a number of months—that I watched all of the address to the UN General Assembly by Yair Lapid, the former Israeli Prime Minister. There was a degree of hope that the Prime Minister then would put on the table again a two-state solution and reopen some of the discussions that this House has called for. However, as my noble friend Lord Palmer indicated, Israel is a democracy and democracies do not always yield the results that you want. As the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, indicated, some of the members of that new Administration have extreme views.
Equally, over 60 years ago is a very long time for those who have been within Palestine, and I noted that less than 3% of the population of the occupied territory are over 65 years old. There is no living memory of the period to which the noble Lord referred. The median age in that area is 19. None of the population has experienced a democratic election process, so it means that it is quite hard to see the areas where we can start to see practical ways forward.
Five years ago, this Chamber debated the recognition of the occupied Palestinian territories as a state. Since then, the illegal settlements—“a block to peace”, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad—have become worse. Indeed, contrary to commitments from the Israeli Government to pause and slow down settlements, there is the recent decision of nearly 7,000 settlement units and 35 settlement areas to be approved imminently. So that pause is not a pause at all.
If we see this as a block to peace, I would be grateful if the Minister could say what practical steps the UK Government are taking to seek the arrest and removal of such blocks, and the development of road and route infrastructure in the affected zones. I have seen areas which could make the situation worse. I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate whether support for that infrastructure will be part of the trade discussions that the Secretary of State is currently engaged in during a visit to Israel at the moment. Is the Secretary of State going to meet Bezalel Smotrich, the Finance Minister, and is it the case that the Government will continue not to engage with the National Security Minister, as has been referred to?
We have to recognise, as did the thread in the speech by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, that a viable state of Palestine is in many ways harder to see. But it is not impossible, and a decision may have to be made that we, in effect, recognise a quasi-failed state at its inception. This is not new; we have done this with many other countries. But it does mean that the UK now needs to stop its dramatic cuts for the support of the people of that area. In 2020, funding was £102 million; in 2023-2024, this has been reduced to £6 million. The Business Department funding for economic regeneration in the area has been cut from £25 million to zero. So can the Minister, in his winding up, explain where UK financial support, which could make the prospects of a statehood more viable, will be in place? If the UK plays a role, it must be to make a two-state solution viable in a practical way, and I hope the Minister will be able to give some positive responses today.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harries, for initiating this debate and for setting the scene, and highlighting the real difficulties that are being faced. I thought it was really important that he stressed the need for hope, because it is not just hope in Palestine and Israel but hope within this House, which will motivate us to pursue the efforts for peace. I support the Government’s efforts and those of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, the Minister responsible, who has been working with our international partners, particularly the US, to promote peace in the region and de-escalate tensions. I know that the noble Lord has reinforced that message in his meetings with Israeli Government officials and the Palestinian Authority. Last month’s joint statement by the UK, the US, France, Germany and Italy, in reaction to Israeli plans to expand settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, was a really important move to reflect that sort of strategy.
Of course, that statement strongly opposed these unilateral actions, which will serve only to exacerbate tensions between Israelis and Palestinians, and undermine efforts to achieve a negotiated two-state solution, which I think the whole House is united behind.
Our efforts should not just be limited to international government actions or negotiations between states. Peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will be achieved only through direct negotiations between those parties. I echo my noble friend Lord Turnberg and other noble Lords; as the Prime Minister acknowledged, the expansion of the Arab-Israeli peace in the region also provides a valuable route to Israeli-Palestinian peace. It is an incredibly important achievement.
Building peace also means improving lives. I do not think we should underestimate the importance of civil society and intercommunity activity. Through most of my working life, I developed very strong relationships with Histadrut, the Israeli trade union movement. That has been very important in how you can build a social movement. Building that sort of peace means backing economic development and supporting people-to-people coexisting projects, which we have heard noble Lords refer to—bringing everyday Israelis and Palestinians together.
I was particularly pleased that, at the end of last year, the Prime Minister committed to explore the US joining the international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace, an effort that actually has cross-party support—support from the leader of the Labour Party, as well as the Prime Minister. Like my noble friend Lady Ramsay, I hope the Minister can tell us what progress has been made in backing that fund, particularly with the US. It is five years since the UK officially supported and endorsed the concept; I think it is about time we heard some positive news on it.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries for tabling this debate and highlighting these important issues. My noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, the Minister for the Middle East, is currently travelling, so I am standing in for him. I thank all noble Lords for their insightful contributions and will try to respond to all the points raised, although so many have been raised that I think that is a long shot.
Too many lives have been lost to violence in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories and we need to accelerate progress towards peace. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, the UK’s position on the Middle East process is clear: we support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a sovereign and viable Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as a shared capital.
To respond to questions by a number of speakers, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Stone and Lord Palmer, we will recognise a Palestinian state when it best serves the prospects of peace. I want to indicate my agreement very strongly with the point of the noble Lord, Lord Austin, that the journey towards those circumstances is a long and complicated one, and requires hard work on the part of Palestinians.
The security situation remains fragile. Last year, large numbers of Palestinians and Israelis were killed by acts of violence, and this year has started the same way, with further violence and instability. The UK is working intensely with all parties and international partners to end this deadly cycle. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, noted, my noble friend Lord Ahmad visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in January to take this work forward, meeting Israeli and Palestinian counterparts.
We were all appalled by the recent terror attacks near Jerusalem that have been mentioned by almost everyone who has spoken today, not least the noble Lords, Lord Austin and Lord Watson, but others as well. We condemn these attacks in the strongest terms possible and stand with Israel in the face of terrorism and violence. Our thoughts remain with the victims and their families. Similarly, we condemn recent indiscriminate rocket fire from Gaza towards civilian populations. Any attacks targeted against civilians are unlawful, unjustifiable and utterly repugnant.
We are also concerned by the high number of Palestinian civilians who have been killed and injured. It should go without saying that Israel has a legitimate right to defend itself. However, it is also important that Israeli forces exercise maximum restraint, especially in the use of live fire, when protecting its legitimate security interest. We have watched with concern the numbers of people killed during incursions by Israeli security forces into places such as Jenin, Jericho and Nablus. When there are accusations of excessive use of force, we advocate swift and transparent investigations. We also strongly condemn indiscriminate violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinian civilians—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke—including the destruction of homes and properties. I strongly share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that those responsible must face full accountability and legal prosecution.
As we approach the religious festivals of Ramadan, Easter and Passover next month, it is important to underline our support for the historic status quo at the holy sites in the Old City of Jerusalem. Sadly, there is a high risk of violence breaking out during this period. During his visit to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories at the beginning of the year, my noble friend Lord Ahmad visited Haram al-Sharif, the Temple Mount site. He emphasised the UK’s unwavering commitment to freedom of religion and belief and to ensuring the safety of all who visit and worship there. We value the Jordanian Hashemite royal family’s important role as custodian of the holy sites in Jerusalem.
The UK Government are asking all parties to take urgent measures to reduce tensions and de-escalate the situation. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, over the weekend the UK joined France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain to express our grave concern in the face of continuing, growing violence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Speaking for the Jerusalem Foundation UK, my noble friend Lord Leigh emphasised his abhorrence both at Palestinian schools being named after terrorists and that an Israeli Minister called for the wipe-out of the Palestinian village of Huwara. My noble friend pointed out, and it is worth reiterating, that the remarks were rightly condemned by the head of the IDF and others in Israel. The UK has always firmly opposed any incitement to violence. We are engaging closely with international partners to end the deadly cycle of violence. We will carry on talking with the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships to support co-operation, stability and economic development for the benefit of both parties.
My noble friend Lord Polak asked about the FCDO’s engagement with the Abraham Accords. The UK fully supports the Abraham Accords. We see the treaty as a unique opportunity to enhance the peace process and raise the prospects of peace right across the Middle East. I think my noble friend described it as “the only game in town”. It certainly is enormously important. I reassure him that, since its inception, the Israel bilateral team in the Foreign Office has been fully engaged in supporting the process. As we mentioned before the debate began, the lead official in charge had changed in January, but the seat that he had occupied was never left empty.
My noble friend Lord Polak also makes a point about the importance of not applying different standards to Israel, as compared with other countries. That is something that happens frequently, and we need to guard against it. But I reassure him and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who asked a similar question, that there is no boycott of any Ministers. That is not something that is being pursued by the UK. As my noble friend Lord Polak said, we will speak to Ministers from Administrations across the world, and agreeing with everything a Minister says or believes is not a prerequisite or a condition that we apply.
Since the beginning of the year, the Foreign Secretary and my noble friend Lord Ahmad have spoken to many influential international partners who, like us, have a stake in calming the situation. That includes US Secretary of State Blinken, Egyptian Foreign Minister Shoukry and Jordanian Foreign Minister Safadi. We are bringing together countries across the world to help co-ordinate our efforts and maximise success.
The UK’s direct efforts take many forms: we help to improve Palestinian security through the work of the British support team in Ramallah, and our diplomatic teams in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem are active on the ground, speaking to and working with their hosts. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, the Government absolutely recognise the value of Israel’s Arab population in the peace process, and I note the opinion poll of Israeli Arabs that my noble friend Lord Leigh mentioned.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stone, highlighted, civil society organisations play an important role. I assure him and other noble Lords that the UK Government are firmly of the view that these organisations must be able to operate freely in the OPTs. We are also a strong supporter of UNRWA, which provides vital services to those in need.
The noble Lord, Lord Stone, also mentioned the US Middle East Partnership for Peace Act. UK officials remain in close contact with the US Government about how existing peacebuilding projects and funding can better support the goals of the Act, and we stand ready to collaborate and co-ordinate further, including regarding the Act’s advisory board, as additional information about its plans and priorities becomes available.
But of course the UK cannot solve this problem by itself. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, mentioned UNRWA, which I have commented on. The UK voted to renew its mandate last year and remains a proud supporter of the agency, which provides essential humanitarian support to Palestinian refugees across the region. Although the seismic impact of the pandemic on the UK economy forced us to take tough decisions in relations to ODA, the UK remains a long-standing supporter of UNRWA and values its importance as a vital humanitarian and stabilising force in the region.
I cannot provide an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, so I am afraid I will give the same answer that I have given so many times in so many debates: future allocations will be set out on the FCDO development tracker very soon, I hope.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, asked about the IRGC and whether—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
It would be useful to put on the record that UK support for UNRWA went from £70 million in 2018 to £28 million in 2021.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
As I said, I am afraid I cannot give information about ongoing or future funding.
The noble Baroness asked whether we would proscribe the IRGC. The list of proscribed terrorist organisations is always under review. We do not routinely comment on whether an organisation is or is not under consideration for proscription. However, we have taken clear action in response to the malign behaviour of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, including sanctioning the organisation in its entirety.
A number of speakers have made the point that a spark of hope has come from the recent meeting in Aqaba, where both Israelis and Palestinians affirmed reciprocal commitments. The meeting is the first in many years and an expression of intent on both sides to engage constructively to de-escalate tensions. We urge all parties to refrain from jeopardising this fragile process, as some have attempted to do, and we call on all parties to make good on the commitments made in Aqaba.
In answer to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, the Foreign Secretary spoke to his counterparts today and asked Israel to live up to its commitments in Aqaba. We look to the Palestinian Authority to resume full security co-operation with Israel as a matter of urgency and to renounce and confront terror. We urge the Government of Israel to cease and to rethink its policies on settlements, evictions and demolitions with immediate effect, a point made by almost everyone speaking today. As we said on 14 February and, most recently, on 4 March, we strongly oppose these unilateral steps; not only are they contrary to international law but, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer said, they undermine the prospects for peace.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that the UK will continue to oppose all actions that make peace harder to achieve, whether taken by the Palestinian or the Israeli side. The Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority must demonstrate through both word and deed a genuine commitment to peace and security and agree a two-state solution. That is the only way to end the conflict, preserve Israel’s Jewish and democratic identity, eliminate the existential threat that Israel has faced at all times, and to realise Palestinian national aspirations.
My noble friend Lord Shinkwin is right to point to the almost unique importance of a strong and balanced Israel, and the noble Lord, Lord Austin, is right to point to the protest in Israel as evidence, if evidence were needed, that Israel is the only country in the region where it is possible to disagree with the state of the day. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made the point that so many Palestinians have never experienced an election.
To conclude, a just and lasting resolution, one that ends the occupation and delivers peace for both Israelis and Palestinians, is long overdue. It is possible to restore stability and to secure peace, but that requires efforts from all sides. The UK stands ready to support them. I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, once again, for tabling the debate and all noble Lords for their contributions.