House of Commons
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
I wish to inform the House that I have received a letter from the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) informing me of his resignation as Chair of the Defence Committee. I therefore declare the Chair vacant. Nominations for the election of a successor are now open and will close at 12 noon on Tuesday 16 January. Nomination forms are available from the Vote Office, the Table Office and the Public Bill Office. Only Members of the Conservative party may be candidates in this election. If there is more than one candidate, the ballot will take place on Wednesday 17 January from 11 am to 2.30 pm in the Aye Lobby. Briefing notes with more information about the election will be made available in the Vote Office.
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
The Government have made it clear that settler violence and the targeting and, on occasions, killing of Palestinian civilians is completely unacceptable.
Rachel Hopkins
As calls for an urgent ceasefire in Gaza and an enduring peaceful resolution in the region continue, we must also remain opposed to the violence taking place in the west bank. To that end, does the Minister share my view that settlement building in the west bank and across the Occupied Palestinian Territories is unacceptable and unlawful and must stop immediately?
Mr Mitchell
Yes. The hon. Lady will know that the position of the Government is and has been for many years that those settlements are illegal. I am pleased to be able to confirm that for her.
Alex Cunningham
The same question could be asked again: it is unlawful, but what are the Government going to do about it? Does the Minister think that one day we might actually see some prosecutions in relation to those violations of international law?
Mr Mitchell
On the point about settler violence, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, we believe that it is not good enough just to arrest those responsible. They need to be both prosecuted and imprisoned.
Carol Monaghan
The problem is that there are key figures in the Israeli Government who are stoking this violence, with the Finance Minister publicly declaring that there are “2 million Nazis” in the west bank. What representation is the Secretary of State making to Israeli counterparts to demand a far more robust response to this violence?
Mr Mitchell
I can tell the hon. Lady that the Prime Minister spoke about this directly with Prime Minister Netanyahu on 5 December and he made clear that we welcome Israel’s recent comments condemning instances of settler violence, but that Israel must take meaningful action to stop it.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Another day when the Foreign Secretary is unaccountable, in the middle of a war that could still get even worse. West bank violence is rising, Hezbollah have attacked Israeli positions and Israeli airstrikes have hit towns in south Lebanon. A widening of this conflict is in no one’s interest, and all parties must show restraint. While he is absent from this place, what steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to prepare for further escalation and to deter all parties from full-blown regional war?
Mr Mitchell
First of all, I fully understand that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have close contact with Lord Cameron as the Foreign Secretary, but he will be aware that he is in almost continuous contact with the Foreign Secretary by text and WhatsApp—indeed, Mr Speaker, if he was in any closer contact it would probably be a civil partnership.
On the substantive point about the widening of the conflict, the right hon. Gentleman will know that, very early after 7 October, the Prime Minister moved a British military asset to the eastern end of the Mediterranean, first to try to ensure that, if there were any arms being moved, we would know about it, and secondly to have eyes on what was happening. British diplomacy, along with that of our like-minded allies and friends, is devoted to ensuring that the conflict does not widen.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
The UK is providing logistical and surveillance support to the state of Israel. Has any evidence come to light that gives concern about the commission of war crimes in the west bank or in Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
Britain is providing some overflight of Gaza to help us identify, and move forward the issue of recovering, the hostages. That is exactly the right thing to do.
Alyn Smith
To repeat the question, has any evidence come to light that gives concern about the commission of war crimes? Can the Minister assure us that any such evidence that comes to light will be sent over to the International Criminal Court in response to its call for evidence under article 86, with which the UK is surely bound to co-operate?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman will know that it is not just the Government but many different organisations that are seeking to identify what is happening on the ground, and the extent to which international humanitarian law is being abided with. Any such evidence will undoubtedly be put before the relevant authority—the courts that he mentioned, specifically—if such evidence is available.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
The White Paper includes 217 commitments to be delivered through to 2030. I have asked officials in the Foreign Office to work with colleagues across Government to implement the commitments and determine the order of priority.
Fiona Bruce
I thank the Minister for that reply and for his leadership on the excellent White Paper, particularly because, in the run-up to its publication, he clearly listened to calls for more targeted support and humanitarian relief for those who are left behind on account of their religion or belief. The challenge now is to turn those innovative commitments into reality, which will require a revised approach to development programming. Will he meet me and others at a roundtable to discuss that?
Mr Mitchell
It is always a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend, who has an office next to mine in the Foreign Office. May I thank her for her comments about the publication of the White Paper? The way in which it has been received around the world demonstrates renewed energy and vigour. I hope that it shows Britain’s reinvigorated leadership on those important matters, and, of course, value for money for our taxpayers.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The White Paper also talks about development diplomats. How many will be trained and what will be the cost?
Mr Mitchell
Yes, the right hon. Lady is quite right: we are increasing the number of development diplomats—I thought she mentioned something about water, but I may have misheard. The point about the White Paper is that it sets out very clearly the aims and aspiration that Britain has to drive forward the sustainable development goals and ensure that we increase climate finance at this critical time. She will be pleased to have seen that and will note that we are now driving forward that agenda.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
The Foreign Secretary has not yet had a chance to meet his Mauritian counterpart. However, the Prime Minister met the Mauritian Prime Minister at the G20 in September to assess the state of negotiations. They welcomed the progress made and agreed to meet again soon.
Daniel Kawczynski
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but in my 18 years of loyal service as a Conservative Member of Parliament, I have never been more disappointed, alarmed and angry about the conduct of the Foreign Office. In this matter, it is negotiating in a neocolonialistic way with Mauritius—an entity that is over 2,000 km away from the British Indian Ocean Territory—without consulting the indigenous people, the Chagossians, whom we expelled in 1968 to make way for an American air force base. The time has come for us to respect the right of self-determination and ensure that the Chagossians are allowed to return to the British Indian Ocean Territory, and for them to decide the future of those islands, rather than handing them to the Chinese client and puppet state of Mauritius, which would be highly counterintuitive to our AUKUS commitments.
David Rutley
The UK has been working in close co-operation with the US since negotiations began in November 2022, and it supports our approach. The UK, the US and Mauritius have all made clear that protecting the base on Diego Garcia, including by preventing foreign malign influence, is a top priority. We will ensure that any agreement achieves that. It is in our national interest and that of our partners, and it is vital for regional and global security.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Government are preparing to disregard international law with their Rwanda Bill today. They seem to continue to want to disregard international law in the case of decisions handed down by the International Court of Justice and other international bodies with regard to the Chagos islands. If the UK Government will not live up to their international obligations and the findings of international bodies, how with any credibility can they ask other countries to do the same?
David Rutley
We are working closely with the relevant Government—with Mauritius, as I have said—to take forward those negotiations. They are being taken forward in good faith, notwithstanding the need to protect our national, regional and global interests at the same time.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Britain has increased planned assistance to Palestinian civilians to £60 million, and has delivered over 74 tonnes of aid. The recent pauses in fighting were a welcome opportunity to get hostages out and aid in. We know that more is needed: more fuel, increased humanitarian access and assistance into Gaza, and compliance with international humanitarian law.
Andy Slaughter
Did the Minister see the analysis recently published in the respected Israeli newspaper Haaretz that the proportion of civilian deaths in Gaza is significantly higher than the average civilian death toll in all conflicts around the world during the 20th century? Does that not give the lie to any claim that Israel is avoiding civilian deaths, and as the death toll in Gaza approaches 20,000, is it not now time for the whole international community—including the UK—to support a ceasefire that protects civilian lives?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman will know the importance that the Government and Opposition Front Benchers attach to saving civilian lives, and will know that Britain has made it absolutely clear to the authorities in Israel that we expect them to abide by international humanitarian law and understand and accept the rules of war. He will equally know that the unprecedented figures he refers to follow on the back of an unprecedented attack by terrorists on 7 October, a pogrom in which more Jewish people were murdered than at any time since 1945 in the holocaust.
Andrew Jones
I wholeheartedly welcome the fact that the UK has increased its humanitarian aid by £60 million since 7 October. Can my right hon. Friend outline how his Department is working to ensure that that funding is spent as effectively as possible, by which I mean reaching those in the most urgent need? I am sure we have all been greatly distressed by the suffering of the innocent civilians in this conflict.
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have 82 tonnes of humanitarian supplies in Cyprus ready to go, and 5 tonnes of medical equipment ready to go. As soon as there is the possibility of getting more aid and support into Gaza, we will be using those supplies to do exactly that.
Imran Hussain
In the past nine weeks, over 250 Palestinians—including 69 children—have been killed by the Israeli security forces in the west bank, and over the past year we have seen a dangerous rise in the number of attacks by violent, illegal Israeli settlers against Palestinians and their property. Even the United States announced that it would impose a travel ban on violent extremist settlers last week, but all the UK Government have been able to announce is that planning is going on. How much more bloodshed do we need to see before the Government stop planning and start acting, and will the Minister take real action today against violent, illegal settlers?
Mr Mitchell
I made clear in my answer to Question 1 that the Government condemn without qualification the illegal attacks by settlers on Palestinians. The hon. Gentleman asks me specifically about visa bans; while I cannot give a commentary in this House, I can tell him that our plans in that respect are moving forward.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
A stop-start approach is likely to prolong hostage captivity and increase the risk to hostages’ lives. It also continues the relentless loss of civilians and innocent children. If the UN Security Council resolution returns with a condemnation of Hamas, will the UK do the right thing this time and back an immediate humanitarian ceasefire?
Mr Mitchell
As the hon. Lady will know, not least from the urgent question asked in the House yesterday by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), neither the Government nor the Opposition believe that a ceasefire is the right way to proceed. However, I can tell her that we are very heavily engaged in what is happening in these Security Council resolutions, and the Security Council permanent members were at Rafah yesterday, looking in detail at the situation on the ground.
Jeff Smith
There has to be a ceasefire to protect civilians in Gaza. Does the Minister agree with the US Secretary for Defence when he said that
“protecting Palestinian civilians in Gaza is both a moral responsibility and a strategic imperative”,
and that
“if you drive them into the arms of the enemy, you replace a tactical victory with a strategic defeat”?
Are the Government making those representations to the Israeli Government?
Mr Mitchell
Of course, the position of the American Defence Secretary is exactly the position of the British Government, and that is why we say at all points that everyone must adhere international humanitarian law.
Neil O’Brien
The whole House is appalled by the atrocities committed by Hamas, but also by the civilian suffering in Gaza. Will my right hon. Friend set out the steps he is taking to relieve civilian suffering, and also the steps he is taking against illegal settlements and the actions of violent settlers, because they are an obstacle to the two-state solution and to a lasting and just peace?
Mr Mitchell
On the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, I can tell him that we have delivered 74 tonnes of aid to el-Arish, which we are trying to make sure gets in. On specific relief, I can inform the House that 100 trucks and 120,600 litres of fuel did get across the border into Rafah yesterday. It is nothing like enough, but there was some progress yesterday.
Layla Moran
Israel has detained huge numbers of Palestinians in Gaza. The International Committee of the Red Cross has received reports of 3,000 missing between 7 October and 29 November, and many also in the west bank. We have seen the images of those men stripped on the beaches, and Haaretz has released an article showing that 10% to 15% of them were connected to Hamas, which means that nearly 90% were not. Are this Government making representations to the Israeli Government about their treatment of Palestinian detainees?
Mr Mitchell
The situation the hon. Member describes is not clear in the fog of war, but I can tell her that we emphasise to everyone the importance of abiding by international humanitarian law and of course the Geneva convention, to which she was referring.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Every life lost, whether Palestinian or Israeli, is a tragedy, and so often in conflict and wars it is the children who suffer the most. What further discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the United States and other partners about having new humanitarian pauses? Finally, I am supportive of the Government, but may I ask him whether he feels that the Israeli response is proportionate?
Mr Mitchell
We are arguing in every way we possibly can that there need to be humanitarian pauses, and that they need to be five days long so that we can get relief and humanitarian supplies into Gaza. On my right hon. Friend’s final point about proportionate force, as I said earlier during these questions, that is why we emphasise continuously the importance of abiding by the rules of war.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
In Gaza, almost 80% of the population have been forced from their homes with nowhere safe to go. Sewage is flowing in the streets, with enormous risk to health, while hospitals and ambulances continue to be hit. Half the population are starving. The most recent report is of over 18,000 Palestinians killed, including utterly appalling numbers of children. I recognise the efforts of Ministers, but it is barely even slowing down the tide of death when the humanitarian crisis simply needs to end. What is the Minister’s strategy to do that?
Mr Mitchell
At all points, Britain is trying to use its brilliant international network, working not only with the other United Nations Security Council members, but through our intense diplomatic network around the middle east. On trying to see a political track when it becomes available, Britain, with its allies, is doing everything possible to achieve that. On the suffering that the hon. Lady described—everyone in the House will agree with her analysis of that—the Foreign Secretary recently announced an additional £30 million of support. We are looking at how that can be used specifically to assist with medical issues, particularly for children.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
The FCDO is working in partnership with the territories to develop climate security assessments through the conflict, stability and security fund. Our blue planet programme has provided over £35 million since 2016 to enhance marine protection and build climate change resilience.
James Sunderland
I am reassured that the UK is investing heavily in climate change adaptation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way of future-proofing that is for the FCDO to appoint a dedicated Minister for all the overseas territories and to ensure that the UK never relinquishes sovereignty for any of them?
David Rutley
I have recently been appointed as the FCDO Minister responsible for the overseas territories. Furthermore, the Prime Minister has made it clear that every Department should have a Minister whose portfolio covers responsibilities to the OTs. The UK has no doubt about its sovereignty over the overseas territories. Any decision to end British sovereignty should be on the basis of a clear constitutionally expressed wish of the territory’s people.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
As you know, Mr Speaker, our global British family in the UK overseas territories contains 94% of all the unique species that the UK is responsible for. These huge marine areas throughout the world’s oceans are hugely vulnerable to climate change, yet are negligible contributors to it. It has been great to see more OTs sign up to the blue belt initiative, work with groups such as Great British Oceans and attend the recent COP. What is the Minister doing to encourage more overseas territories to join the blue belt and to assist overseas territories to get access to strategic international funding for conservation, adaptation and resilience?
David Rutley
It is an important question. Our need to tackle climate change extends widely to the OTs. We have done significant work on the blue belt programme, and we have engaged a large number of OTs at COP28 this year so that we can help push forward their work and give greater access to this funding. It is vitally important.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
We strongly condemn forced marriage and the forced conversion of women and girls, including in Pakistan. We regularly raise our concerns, including individual cases, at a senior level with the Pakistani authorities, and we fund projects in Pakistan to address the underlying causes.
Sir Edward Leigh
At the age of 14, Maira Shahbaz was abducted, forced into a marriage and raped. She escaped and has been sitting in one room with her entire family, terrified. She is now 18. I have lost track of the number of meetings I have had with successive Home Secretaries and the letters I have written. Nothing has happened to get this girl out, yet at the same time 100,000 fit young men are pouring across the channel in search of a better job. For God’s sake, can we not show some Christian compassion? What more can the Foreign Office do in Pakistan to try to stop these forced conversions and forced marriages?
Leo Docherty
We continue to press these individual cases with the Pakistani Government. The former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) raised human rights, including the persecution of minorities, with caretaker Prime Minister Kakar on 25 September. Lord Ahmad raised the need to protect minority communities with caretaker Foreign Minister Jilani on 13 September and again in a letter on 5 October. We continue to raise in Islamabad the issue of forced marriage and conversion with the Pakistani authorities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This is not only about the case of Maira Shahbaz, but about the cases of many other young Christian girls, young Hindu girls and young Sikh girls in Pakistan being kidnapped from an early age. It is clear that there is an epidemic in Pakistan of the kidnapping and abuse of young girls. What is being done with Pakistan to change the attitude and the law of the land?
Leo Docherty
As well as making representations at a senior level, we fund programmes in Pakistan working to address child and forced marriage and gender-based violence, discrimination and intolerance, especially against minorities, in an effort to achieve cultural change that will attend to this matter. Of course, that is slow and painful work, but our team in Islamabad is fully focused on it.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Israel has the right to defend itself against terror, restore its security and bring the hostages home, but it must abide by international law and take all possible measures to protect civilians.
Kerry McCarthy
I do not disagree with anything that the Minister has just said, but the question is: what does Israel having to abide by international law actually look like? We know that it has acted with impunity in the west bank with illegal settlements, and historically with the building of the wall and so on. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said, the sheer scale of casualties of innocent civilians in Gaza raises serious questions. What does it actually mean when we say that Israel has to abide by international law?
Mr Mitchell
It means precisely what it says. The fact that Israel is a democracy and the fact that all around the world people will be looking carefully at how things are being conducted in the region should give the hon. Lady hope that international humanitarian law counts and will be supported.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Recently the International Criminal Court prosecutor, Karim Khan KC, visited Israel and the west bank. In relation to Gaza, he stated:
“A law is not some cosmetic adornment that can be disregarded. It’s a fundamental requirement that must be complied with.”
I assume the Minister will agree with that. If that is the case, will he ensure that Britain co-operates fully with the prosecutor in his work?
Mr Mitchell
As a strong supporter of the International Criminal Court, Britain will always co-operate. We strongly support the ICC. The hon. Gentleman will know that, as a state party to the Geneva convention, the Israeli Government are obliged to take action against Israeli nationals accused of grave breaches of international humanitarian law, were there to be any, so that would not be a matter for the ICC.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
Iran bears responsibility for groups it has long supported. We have stepped up our response to recent attacks. HMS Diamond will bolster our maritime presence in the region and a new Iran sanctions regime will soon be in place, giving us greater powers to designate Iranian activity.
Theresa Villiers
The regime in Tehran has been blatant, public and even unapologetic about its backing, funding and arming of Hamas—terrorists who we now know are not just murders but rapists. In the light of that, is it not time to snap back the full range of sanctions on Iran, to sanction a wider number of officials in Iran and to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?
David Rutley
Our new Iran sanctions regime will be laid imminently, giving us new and enhanced powers to counter Iran’s hostile activities in the UK and around the world, and its oppressive practices at home. We have already sanctioned more than 350 Iranian individuals and entities, including the IRGC in its entirety.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I agree with the comments made by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), but should we not also be wondering about what Iran is doing within its own borders? Four hundred and nineteen people were executed in Iran between January and July, and 127 have been executed since 7 October. Iran has been using what is happening in Israel as a cover for much faster executions, including those of 17-year-old Hamidreza Azari—a child—and Milad Zohrevand, who is the eighth “Woman, Life, Freedom” protester to have been executed by this horrible regime. Is it not time that we really took the case to Iran about its own human rights record?
David Rutley
The hon. Member makes a very important point. We call out the brutal repression of the protests that have taken place, and we continue to hold Iran to account for its human rights record, including the repression of women, girls and children, as he highlights. We will, as I said, bring to bear a new sanctions regime to assist in those efforts.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The UK is working closely with international partners on this long-standing priority, including at the UN Human Rights Council, where the UK led resolution 51/1 on Sri Lanka.
Anne McLaughlin
Many prominent Sri Lankans were credibly accused of war crimes against the Tamil minority, particularly towards the end of the 30-year civil war in Sri Lanka. But all these years on, they are still at large, unlike the nearly 18,000 Tamils who went missing and are still unaccounted for. In response to the SNP spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), we were told earlier that evidence of war crimes would be taken seriously. How can the people of Palestine have any faith in that if the Tamil people of Sri Lanka have had the evidence sitting there for all these years and the Government are doing nothing, other than wringing their hands?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We all take these issues very seriously. I was in Sri Lanka just a few weeks ago, and I was able to raise the need for progress on human rights, on reconciliation and, indeed, on accountability with the President of Sri Lanka during my visit.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Tamils, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to assure the House that the FCDO is actively considering the evidence for sanctioning those credibly accused of war crimes who are active participants in Sri Lankan high society, and that she will pass that evidence on to the United Nations Human Rights Council, in line with resolution 30/1?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I commend my hon. Friend for his active and championing work as chair of the APPG. He is right, and we absolutely recognise the concerns of the Sri Lankan public, and indeed victim groups, about the creation of a credible domestic accountability process. We continue to urge the Sri Lankan Government to address those concerns. As I said, I raised them when I was there. I was also able to discuss human rights and justice issues with members of civil society, Tamil representatives and the governor of the Northern Province when I visited Jaffna.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Sri Lanka is a key member of the Commonwealth family and occupies a strategically vital position geographically. Warm relations are vital, but for far too long, those accused of brutal crimes in the past, including against the Tamil minority, have escaped justice. Will the Minister outline what steps she is taking to support the Tamils’ calls for justice, including, if necessary, by taking action against existing and former Sri Lankan Ministers? Will she outline the support for Sri Lankan democracy and human rights?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We welcomed the recent written update on Sri Lanka by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and, in September, the UK Government issued statements that emphasised the importance of inclusive transitional justice and effective governance reforms in order to highlight the arbitrary use of laws to suppress dissent. As I said, we led UNHRC resolution 51/1 on Sri Lanka, providing the mandate for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to report on Sri Lanka, and we continue to work with it.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
There must be a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—a two-state solution that provides justice and security for both Israelis and Palestinians.
Fleur Anderson
The aerial bombardment by Israel of one of the most densely populated regions in the world in Gaza has been devastating. Recent statistics reported in Israel show that 61% of deaths in Gaza have been civilians. When the Prime Minister spoke to the Israeli Prime Minister last week, did he urge him to stop besieging and blockading Gaza, to comply with international law, which must mean being proportionate, and to protect innocent lives?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Member is right. At the COP, the Prime Minister was able to have meetings with Qatar, Egypt and Jordan, as well as with Israel, and he reiterated the point that he has made publicly before, which is that Israel has the right to self-defence, but it must operate within international humanitarian law.
David Linden
The Minister talks about the need for a two-state solution, and we will not find much disagreement on that, but how can he advocate a two-state solution when the Government refuse to recognise the state of Palestine? Is he confident that there will be much left of Palestine after Israel’s continued bombardment? That is why we need a ceasefire right now.
Mr Mitchell
The Government strongly support the two-state solution. Of course, before these terrible events on 7 October, there were new partnerships with Israel developing across the middle east: one thinks in particular of the Emirates and Bahrain. When there is a break in the clouds and an opportunity for a political track to get going, we will do everything we can to build on the important point that the hon. Member underlined.
Chris Clarkson
Notwithstanding the attempted genocide of 7 October and the cynical use of Palestinian civilians as human shields, the single best solution for peace in the region is a two-state solution. What steps are the Government taking to facilitate that? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the kidnappers, murderers and rapists of Hamas cannot be involved in those negotiations?
Mr Mitchell
Yes. We certainly agree with the United States that Gaza should be under Palestinian control in due course and that there is no place for Hamas in all of that. In respect of my hon. Friend’s point about how we advance towards a two-state solution, he will know that the Foreign Secretary has been both in Tel Aviv and on the west bank in Ramallah, and we are looking to see what Britain can do to help build the capacity of the Palestinian state in the future, and to bolster it.
Chi Onwurah
The Minister will have access to intelligence—ours and that of our allies—that he may not be in a position to share with the House. Will he therefore share his understanding of the effectiveness of Israel’s campaign to weaken and eliminate Hamas and return the hostages, given the appalling and unacceptable loss of innocent Palestinian life—thousands and thousands of children have been maimed and killed—given the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza, given that more than 100 Israeli hostages remain in captivity there, and given that Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israel every day?
Mr Mitchell
We are doing everything we can to help the hostages to whom she referred and to ensure that they come home. We do that through negotiations, not least in Qatar, and through the overflights, which I referred to earlier. The hon. Lady may rest assured that the Government take precisely the same view as her on what should be achieved.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
We welcome the release of Leila De Lima on bail, which is a positive step for human rights and the rule of law. The UK’s ambassador has repeatedly raised this case with the Philippines Government, and visited her during her detention.
Wendy Chamberlain
I agree that it is good news that Senator De Lima has been released on bail after nearly seven years of detention. What representations are the Government making to their counterparts in the Philippines, via the ambassador, about resolving all the other charges against her, which are believed to stem from her vocal opposition to thousands of extrajudicial killings in connection with former President Duterte’s war on drugs, and about a meaningful investigation into those killings?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The UK Government regularly engage with the Government of the Philippines on the full range of our human rights concerns. We welcomed the 2020 UN Human Rights Council resolution, which proposed technical co-operation on human rights between the Government of the Philippines and the United Nations. The resolution resulted in a three-year UN joint programme, which commenced in 2021, to which the UK has contributed £400,000. We will continue to work alongside them.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
I regularly discuss a broad range of issues, including Zimbabwe, with Commonwealth counterparts, most recently on Sunday in Dubai when I met the Commonwealth secretary-general, Baroness Scotland. The decision on re-entry is for all members, based on the membership requirements and the values and principles set out in the Commonwealth charter.
Ruth Jones
Given the recent enlargement of the Commonwealth, the matters that the Minister referred to are important. More than 100,000 Zimbabweans live in the UK, many in south Wales, and thousands work all year round in our NHS. What engagement has the Minister had with the Zimbabwean diaspora to understand the diversity of perspectives and to support their views about Commonwealth membership and other challenges and issues that they face?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is right that Zimbabwe has a productive and vibrant diaspora in the United Kingdom, and we hear their views many times. Britain warned that the election needed to be violence-free and fair, and it was certainly violence-free. We are waiting for the full report of the observers before making a judgment on further events.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
We are working with international and regional partners to secure the release of hostages, including British nationals.
Bob Blackman
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The hostages who have been released report sexual and physical violence committed against them while in captivity. The Israeli Health Ministry reports that hostages were drugged to make them look happy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Hamas are treating hostages in an inhumane fashion, the international Red Cross should be given the opportunity to visit them all, and we should ensure that they are returned home as soon as possible?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is quite right about the rights of the international Red Cross. We are involved in intensive diplomatic efforts to secure the release of the hostages. It is continually raised by the Prime Minister, who met families of British people taken hostage by Hamas and of other hostages during his trip to Israel. My hon. Friend may rest assured that while I cannot give a running commentary on these matters, we are doing everything we can to secure their release.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly support the calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all the remaining hostages held by Hamas and other groups. However, further to the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), I refer him to UN resolution 1860 of 2009, when the UK supported a ceasefire in Gaza and a permanent ceasefire followed a few days later.
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady will be well aware of the view of the Government and, indeed, of the Opposition Front Bench, on the possibility of a ceasefire at this time, which we simply do not think exists. On the earlier events that she refers to, the situation then was very different from the one that pertains today.
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
On the issue of hostage taking, the British-Russian dual national Vladimir Kara-Murza was jailed and poisoned by the Putin regime for criticising the war in Ukraine. He is a de facto hostage of the regime. I have just met his mother, who is in Parliament today. Will the Minister arrange for me to meet the Foreign Secretary with his relatives to hear about the conditions and torture he has been subject to?
Mr Mitchell
I am advised that Ministers have met the family, but I will see what I can do to facilitate a meeting, as my right hon. Friend requests.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Small numbers of hostages have been released in the past as a result of pauses in the response by the Israeli authorities. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that there is wider understanding, both here and internationally, that those pauses are best activated whenever Hamas does not take advantage of them and again embed themselves in hospitals and civilian populations?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of humanitarian pauses, and preferably humanitarian pauses that are several days long. We are doing everything we can to try to ensure that the case for humanitarian pauses, and the ability that would result of getting aid, support and supplies into Gaza, is achieved.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
The UK regularly discusses support for Ukraine with NATO allies and partners, including at the recent NATO Foreign Ministers meeting and the NATO-Ukraine Council, which the Foreign Secretary attended alongside Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kuleba. Together, we approved an ambitious programme, including on energy security and interoperability. Allies remain steadfast in their commitment to support Ukraine through the winter and for as long as it takes.
Theo Clarke
As a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I recently visited NATO’s Allied Rapid Reaction Corps headquarters in Gloucester, so I welcome that yesterday the Defence Secretary announced the UK-led Ukraine maritime capability coalition to give our allies the power to rule the waves. What steps is the UK taking to help Ukraine to rebuild its armed forces and provide humanitarian assistance to its citizens?
Leo Docherty
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The maritime domain is hugely important. We will continue to work with NATO and Ukraine, including through NATO’s €500 million comprehensive assistance package, to which we have contributed £82 million. In November, the Foreign Secretary attended the first meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Council at Foreign Minister level. He emphasised the need to sustain our support to Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Notwithstanding President Zelensky’s meeting in the White House today and the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Capitol Hill in recent days, what are the Government doing to ensure that US support for Ukraine, which is the anchor of all European and broader international support, remains steadfast despite the ongoing political situation in the US?
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
The Government are focused on our vital priorities, notably: supporting Ukraine, standing with Israel, and providing aid to Palestinian civilians. The Foreign Secretary and I met global leaders at COP28, who welcomed the UK’s leadership at this critical time. We discussed our newly launched international development White Paper, which seeks to get the sustainable development goals back on track at this halfway stage, when they are so far off. As mentioned before, I will deputise for the Foreign Secretary in this House and make regular statements to keep Members updated.
Jason McCartney
What steps is the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office taking to persuade and encourage our NATO allies to continue and enhance not just their military but civil support for Ukraine in its brave campaign against Putin’s evil invasion?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to put it in those terms. The Foreign Secretary met the Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kuleba at the NATO-Ukraine Council. My hon. Friend will know that nearly £10 billion in military, humanitarian and economic support has been provided by Britain since February 2022, and we were the first country to provide lethal aid. We are the biggest contributor to the armed forces in Ukraine of any single nation.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
An aggressive threat to a smaller neighbour, an attack on recognised international borders, an illegitimate referendum stoking historical grievances—the Putin playbook is being copied in Caracas by Maduro. We must stand up to bullies and tyrants with imperial ambitions. As we maintain our steadfast commitment to Ukraine, can the Minister reaffirm the UK’s unwavering support for Guyana’s sovereignty?
Mr Mitchell
Yes, I can. Yesterday I attended a meeting convened by the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, and it put out a statement last night which I very much hope will reassure the right hon. Gentleman.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
The South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands marine protected area provides comprehensive protection against the entire maritime zone. It has been rated one of the most sustainable in the world. The Government are currently undertaking their second five-year review, and a report is expected early next year.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
We condemn this outrageous detention, and we will continue to make representations in Moscow and elsewhere for consular access and Mr Navalny’s release.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is right to ask that question. British scientific expertise has delivered two new malaria vaccines, and as a result of our replenishment of the Global Fund we are working to ensure that 86 million mosquito nets are delivered, providing 450,000 seasonal malaria chemoprevention treatments.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Mr Mitchell
I raise these issues not only at the COP but whenever I have the opportunity to do so, not least in discussions with Hamdok, the last Prime Minister of Sudan. While we welcome the call from last Saturday’s Intergovernmental Authority on Development summit for an immediate cessation of hostilities, we remain acutely concerned by the events that are taking place, many of which bear the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
David Rutley
Venezuela’s actions with regard to Essequibo in Guyana are completely unacceptable. The border was settled in 1899, and we are working with our regional partners, such as Brazil, and with international bodies including the United Nations Security Council, the Commonwealth—as has already been mentioned—and the Organisation of American States to de-escalate tensions.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Mr Mitchell
As I said earlier, we do stress the importance of abiding by the rules of war. I pay tribute to the brave humanitarian workers who put themselves in harm’s way, unarmed, to help their fellow citizens.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
What precedent do the current negotiations between London and Port Louis on the future of the British Indian Ocean territory have in relation to the sovereignty of other uninhabited overseas territories, and, indeed the British sovereign base areas in Cyprus?
David Rutley
As raised earlier in substantive questions, we continue to have our negotiations on the British Indian Ocean Territories, which we are taking forward in good faith.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
Leo Docherty
When it comes to Cyprus we have been working closely with our allies attending to the need for security, which may pertain to the release of hostages, so I think this is entirely a good thing.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
I am a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Japan, and we have recently hosted more than 60 companies in Parliament, for which we thank the Minister for Investment and Blick Rothenburg. With increasing securitisation in international politics, is it not more important than ever to big up UK-Japan commercial opportunities? As the Japanese say: ganbatte ne!
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The UK-Japan bilateral relationship has never been stronger. The Hiroshima accord that the Prime Minister agreed with Prime Minister Kishida on 19 May cements and builds on a period of sustained growth and deepening of our enhanced global strategic partnership.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
As many of us go home tonight and kiss our children, parents in Gaza will be searching for body parts to recognise their children and burying them. Families broken; futures stolen. Is the Minister comfortable with over 18,000 innocent Palestinian civilians being killed, many of them children? When will he do the right thing and call for a ceasefire?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady reflects the pain and agony that those parents feel with great eloquence, and it is felt across the House, but the issue is how we address the causes of what happened on 7 October and the fact that a pogrom was imposed by Hamas, killing so very many Jewish people. We have to move towards a moment where the political skies clear and there is an opportunity for a new political initiative.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does my hon. Friend recognise the recent joint statement from Armenia and Azerbaijan as a historic milestone towards the normalisation of relations? Can he tell us what this Government are doing towards bringing about a lasting peace treaty?
Leo Docherty
We are greatly encouraged by the joint statement from Azerbaijan and Armenia confirming their intention to normalise relations. As I made clear to both countries during my recent visit, we fully support their efforts to achieve a historic and lasting peace.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
In answer to question 9, the Minister seemed to say that the Government were planning to completely proscribe the IRGC. Could he confirm that? If that were the case, it would be welcomed across the House.
David Rutley
To be clear, I said that we would be introducing a new sanctions regime.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
My constituent Amani Ahmed arrived here from Gaza for her PhD just days before the outbreak of the war and is now desperately trying to bring her husband and three children to the UK. UK Visas and Immigration advises travelling to the nearest visa application centre but that is impossible as they are unable to leave Gaza. Can the Minister urgently intervene to ensure that Amani’s family are able to join her safely in the UK?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady will know that there is a specific track to pursue on this, and if she has not already been in touch with the crisis centre at the Foreign Office, that is what she should do immediately.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week I was contacted by Kennington Bethlehem Link, a voluntary group dedicated to working with Israelis and Palestinians. It raised the case of Anas Abu Srour, who was arrested by the Israeli army. This week it was announced that he had been detained for six months in administrative detention, and the reason for his arrest is still unclear. A petition of support has been signed by over 6,000 people in nine days, so will the Minister please ask the Foreign Secretary to work urgently with his Israeli counterpart so that we can find out why he was imprisoned?
Mr Mitchell
If the hon. Lady will make available to me the full details of that case—assuming that she has not already told the Foreign Office—I will look into it for her and ensure she gets an answer.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
That great world-beating British charity, the HALO Trust, has just announced the destruction of its 2 millionth landmine. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the trust, and also pledge further funding, which will be vital and necessary if it is to be able to deal with the outcome of Ukraine?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to pay tribute to the HALO Trust. Before I returned to Government I was an ambassador for the trust, so I speak with some pride in this matter. If he looks carefully at the International Development White Paper, which drew strength from all across the House in its commitments and identifying important aspects, he will see that HALO is mentioned there.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
It is good to see you back in your place, Mr Speaker.
Is the Department monitoring the case of Raffaele Mincione, the British citizen who is currently being taken through the Vatican state courts, and is it making any representations to the Vatican courts about his case? Will officials agree to meet me to discuss the case?
Mr Mitchell
I can certainly organise for someone to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that but, as he will know, arrangements with the Vatican were substantially changed in the year 1534, in the reign of King Henry VIII. As far as I know, there has been no change since then to reverse that.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
India’s supreme court has upheld the Indian Government’s decision to revoke article 370 of the constitution, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir. What assessment has the Minister made of the situation, as many Kashmiri constituents are quite worried?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We took note of the supreme court decision, and we continue to discuss with both parties the need both to resolve the continuing situation and to have constructive dialogue with the Kashmiris involved.
Points of Order
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. With crucial talks at COP28 locked in disagreement, we are hearing reports that the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), is on his way back to the UK. It is said that he
“will continue to be the lead UK minister for the negotiations with any final decisions agreed with him.”
I do not see how that can quite be the case when he is on an aeroplane. We can only assume that he has been called back because of tonight’s Rwanda vote, and that saving the Prime Minister’s skin is somehow seen as more important than trying to save the planet.
Mr Speaker, can we bring the Minister to the House to explain why he has left the COP talks and what that means for our negotiations?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Government, as the hon. Lady knows, is seamless. While the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero is anxious to support the Government on the important legislation tonight, my noble Friend Lord Benyon, who is one of the UK’s greatest experts on climate change, is at the COP in Dubai today to ensure that a senior Minister is representing Britain in those vital negotiations.
Mr Speaker
Right. Let us move on.
Bills Presented
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dame Maria Miller, supported by Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger, Chris Elmore, Steve Brine, Julie Elliott, Harriett Baldwin, Bob Blackman, Layla Moran, Taiwo Owatemi and Sir James Duddridge, presented a Bill to make provision about the status of, and privileges and immunities in connection with, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 140).
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (Sentencing Guidelines) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dame Maria Miller presented a Bill to require the Sentencing Council to issue sentencing guidelines in respect of sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 141).
Public Transport (Rural Areas) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sarah Dyke presented a Bill to set minimum service levels for the provision of public transport in rural areas, including for access to sites of employment and education; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 51).
Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
Tuesday 12th December 2023
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 View all Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 269 / Noes: 337 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 313 / Noes: 269 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 332 / Noes: 61 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
The reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Before I speak to the Bill, let me say that the House may well be aware that, tragically, there has been a death on the Bibby Stockholm barge. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House, like mine, are with those affected. The House will understand that at this stage I am uncomfortable going into any more details, but we will of course investigate fully.
This Government are stopping the boats. Arrivals are down by a third this year, as illegal entries are on the rise elsewhere in Europe. Indeed, small boat arrivals are up by 80% in the Mediterranean, but they are down by a third across the channel. The largest ever small boats deal with France, tackling the supply of boat engines and parts, the arrest and conviction of people smugglers, and a 70% increase in raids on illegal working are having an impact—a positive one. We have signed returns and co-operation agreements with France, Bulgaria, Turkey, Italy, Georgia and Ethiopia. Fifty hotels are being returned to their local communities, and the initial asylum backlog, which stood at 92,000, is now under 20,000. We have sent back 22,000 illegal migrants, and the UK’s arrangement with Albania proves that deterrents work.
James Cleverly
I will not give way yet, as I have just started.
Last year, a third of all those arriving in small boats to the coast of this country were Albanian. This year, we have returned 5,000 Albanians, and arrivals from Albania are down by 90%. But in recent years, some of the Government’s efforts to tackle illegal migration and deport foreign national offenders have been frustrated by a seemingly endless cycle of legal challenges and rulings from domestic and foreign courts.
James Cleverly
I will give way in a moment. Of course, this Government respect court judgments, even when we disagree with them, but Parliament and the British people want an end to illegal immigration and they support the Rwanda plan.
Debbie Abrahams
The Home Secretary points to deterrence. He has often used the Australian model of offshoring detention centres as a gold standard. What are his comments, then, on the fact that Australia has recently shut down its offshore centre because of the high financial and human costs?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady raises the case of Australia. It had 55,000 illegal migrations by boats and that has trended pretty much down to zero—deterrence works.
Mr Baron
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the British are world champions at queueing. We do not like queue jumpers, which is why illegal immigration grates with us. Will he confirm that the Government will take all steps to ensure that we remain within international law, not just now but going forward? In that case, I will certainly be supporting the Bill tonight. Does he also agree that some colleagues in this place need to be careful what they wish for?
James Cleverly
I am confident, and indeed the conversations I have had with the Government’s legal advisers reinforce my belief, that the actions we are taking, while novel and very much pushing at the edge of the envelope, are within the framework of international law. That is important because the UK is a country that demonstrates to the whole world the importance of international law. We champion that on the world stage and it is important that we demonstrate it.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Cleverly
I am going to make further progress. Judges of course play an important role, but they are not policymakers and they should not be policymakers. When the courts find a particular formulation of policy unlawful, it is the job of politicians to listen to their views, respect their views and find a solution.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Cleverly
I will make further progress. Thanks to the efforts on the part of the UK Government and the Government of Rwanda, that is exactly what we have done in response to the verdict from the Supreme Court. The new treaty that I signed last week with Rwanda and the Bill that accompanies it are game changing. The principle of relocating people to a safe country, to have their asylum claim processed there, is entirely consistent with the terms of the refugee convention. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal unanimously confirmed that point.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend was an excellent Foreign Secretary, so he will know the extraordinary tensions that exist between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. The Democratic Republic of the Congo accuses Rwanda of sponsoring the M23 terrorist organisation, which is violating Congolese women and killing Congolese soldiers. This week, the Congolese President named the Rwandan President as a Hitler-like figure. What is my right hon. Friend’s response to the concerns of our Congolese friends in that regard?
James Cleverly
In my former role, I had extensive conversations with the Governments of both the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. We do not agree with that assessment of the Government of Rwanda. More importantly, other international organisations also rely heavily on Rwanda, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the European Union. They would not do that if they believed that Rwanda was an unsafe country.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Cleverly
I intend to make further progress—this is Second Reading and there will be plenty of opportunities for colleagues to speak—but I give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Just yesterday, I received correspondence stating:
“EU Council Directive 2005/85/EC is caught by Article 2(1) of the Protocol, therefore can be relied upon in NI (but not GB).”
It added that article 7 of the directive
“confers the right to remain in the territory”
while a claim is being processed, which
“creates additional ‘rights’ in NI”
that do not apply in GB and
“expressly frustrates the core intent of the Rwanda Bill from applying in NI”.
Has the Home Secretary had the opportunity to look at that?
James Cleverly
The point that the hon. Gentleman makes about differential treatment in different parts of the United Kingdom is one that we are conscious of. As the Bill progresses, he and others will have the opportunity to raise concerns about specific details. We will, of course, listen to his concerns and those of others. When passed, the Bill will address the practical implications. At the moment, the challenge of the number of refugees is not as significant in Northern Ireland as in other parts of the UK, but, as the hon. Gentleman has heard me say before, we are always conscious to make sure that all parts of the UK are, and feel that they are, in the thinking of the Government as we move forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Cleverly
I will make further progress. As I say, the principle of relocating people to a safe country to have their asylum claims processed is entirely consistent with the terms of the refugee convention. The High Court and the Court of Appeal unanimously confirmed that, and the Supreme Court did not dispute those findings in own findings three weeks ago.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is clear in international law and in relation to the question of the rule of law that in this country, with our unwritten constitution, a clear and unambiguous use of words, clearly establishing the intention of Parliament in the enactment of a law, takes precedence over international law, in accordance with the judgments of Lord Hoffmann, as well as judgments and statements by Lord Judge, Lord Denning and other very distinguished jurists, including in paragraph 144 of the judgment made last month?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an important point. He is right that when the wording of a Bill is clear and unambiguous—where there is a deeming clause—that is the express will of Parliament, that Parliament is sovereign, and that that thinking must be adhered to through the legal process.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Cleverly
I am going to make some progress.
A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal, meaning that we cannot yet lawfully remove people to Rwanda. That is because of concerns that it expressed that relocated individuals might be refouled. I am sure the House knows that that means that those individuals might be re-deported to a third country. The Government disagreed with that verdict, but, as I have said, we respect the verdict of their lordships. It is important to understand that the Supreme Court’s judgment was based on the facts as they existed 18 months ago and that the Court said the problem could be remedied. As I told the House last week, we have worked on and found that very remedy. Our asylum partnership with Rwanda sets out, in a legally binding international treaty, the obligations of both the UK and Rwanda within international law.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. As he says, international law and domestic law are both important, but they are different. The Bill seeks to give this House the power to deem Rwanda a safe country. Can he confirm for me that what it does not seek to do is suggest that this country, or this House, has the power to deem itself in compliance with international law? My worry stems from clause1(5) of the Bill, which, of course, reflects the Government’s intention to deem Rwanda a safe country, but then goes on to describe the safe country as one
“to which persons may be removed…in compliance with all of the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law”.
Will he confirm that it is not the Government’s intention to suggest that it falls to any country to deem itself in compliance with international law—he does not need me to explain what the consequences of that might be elsewhere in the world—and that he will look again at the language and whether it needs to be changed to clarify that point?
James Cleverly
I can reassure my right hon. and learned Friend that that is absolutely not the intention of the Bill. The deeming clause is specifically about the safety of Rwanda, because of our response to their lordships’ position at the Supreme Court hearing. We are not seeking to redefine through domestic legislation international law.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
If the right hon. Gentleman is right and the treaty with Rwanda meets the concerns of the Supreme Court, why is this Bill necessary? If Rwanda is now a safe country as a result of the treaty, why is this highly controversial Bill, which is clearly causing great problems in his own parliamentary party, necessary?
James Cleverly
We are putting forward legislation that will be clear and unambiguous, so as to support the treaty. The treaty addresses the concerns raised by their lordships.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Cleverly
With the indulgence of the House, I intend to make some progress. I want to make sure that others have a full chance to speak in this debate.
The Bill sets out to Parliament and to the courts why Rwanda is safe for those relocated there. The treaty that I signed last week puts beyond legal doubt the safety of Rwanda. It provides the basis to end the merry-go-round of legal challenges that have second-guessed the will of Parliament and frustrated this policy, this House, and the desire of the British people.
Rwanda will introduce an even stronger end-to-end asylum system, stronger still than the one that underpins its relationship with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It will have a specialist asylum appeals tribunal—
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for giving way. Since we last spoke in this House, it has been confirmed that the Government have given the Rwandan Government £240 million, with a further £50 million to come in April—all independently of anybody be being sent to Rwanda. Will he now confirm that the Government’s deal also means a further £50 million in 2025 and a further £50 million on top of that in 2026?
James Cleverly
The right hon. Lady is asking me to confirm figures that we have put in the public domain. Unsurprisingly, I am totally comfortable confirming what I have already said. Rwanda will introduce an even stronger—
James Cleverly
The right hon. Lady has the chance to make a speech in just a few moments.
The system of specialist asylum tribunals to consider individual appeals against any refused claim within Rwanda will have one Rwandan and one other Commonwealth co-president and will be made up of judges from a mix of nationalities, selected by the co-president. To the point the right hon. Lady is making about the money spent by the British Government, as is the case with many countries around the world, the Government spend money capacity building with our international partners, and we have been working extensively with Rwanda to build capacity too.
The treaty makes clear that anyone relocated to Rwanda cannot be removed from Rwanda to another country except back to the United Kingdom. It is binding in international law and enhances the role of the independent monitoring committee, which will have the power to set its own priority areas for monitoring. The committee will have unfettered access to monitor the entire relocation process, from initial screening to relocation and settlement in Rwanda. Relocated individuals and legal representatives will be able to launch confidential complaints directly with that committee. It is that treaty and the accompanying evidence pack that enable the Government to conclude with confidence that Rwanda is safe. We will need to be certain that domestic and foreign courts will also respect the treaty, and that is why we have introduced this Bill.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
On that point on foreign courts, clause 5(2) says:
“It is for a Minister of the Crown…to decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure.”
Is the advice from the Attorney General that it will be compatible with international law for a Minister to refuse to comply with such an indication?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend, who is an expert proceduralist in this House, will know that advice from the AG to Government is privileged, and I am not going to share it at the Dispatch Box, but he will also know that the Government’s position is clear and unambiguous that this is in accordance with international law. He can rest assured of that.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as a matter of law, an interim measure under rule 35 is directed not to the courts of the UK, but to the Governments of the member states? Therefore, what the Bill says simply restates what is the position anyway: it is the member state that it applies to, not the courts.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Home Secretary give way?
James Cleverly
I will give way one more time, and then I will make more progress.
Dame Meg Hillier
The Home Secretary says he will not reveal to the House the Attorney General’s advice, and that is fine, but on the issue of the money, his permanent secretary was in front of the Public Accounts Committee yesterday and told us that, as well as the payment of £50 million due next year, there are payments planned for years four and five. Is he willing to share with the House how much will be paid to Rwanda in years four and five of the programme?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady will know that we have committed to a reporting schedule that is completely consistent with other Government Departments and with the reporting schedule of the Home Office in other areas. We intend to commit to doing that.
This Bill builds on the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and complements all other measures that this Government are employing to end illegal migration. The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill makes it unambiguously clear that Rwanda is safe and it will prevent the courts from second-guessing the will of this sovereign Parliament.
James Cleverly
I have to make progress.
The Bill gives effect to the judgment of Parliament that Rwanda is a safe country, notwithstanding UK law or any interpretation of international law. For the purposes of the Bill, a safe country is one to which people
“may be removed from the United Kingdom in compliance with all of the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law”—
I hope that will reassure my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright)—
“that are relevant to the treatment in that country of persons who are removed there.”
It means that someone removed to that country will not be removed or sent to another country in contravention of any international law, and that anyone who seeks asylum or who has had an asylum determination will have their claim determined and be treated in accordance with that country’s obligations under international law.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Cleverly
I am going to make progress. I have been generous, but I want others to have the chance to speak.
Anyone removed to Rwanda under the provisions of this treaty will not be removed from Rwanda except to the United Kingdom, in a very small number of limited and exceptional circumstances. Should the UK request the return of any relocated person, Rwanda will return them. Decision makers, including myself or the holder of the post of Home Secretary, an immigration officer and the courts must all treat Rwanda as a safe country. They must do so notwithstanding the relevant UK law or any interpretation of international law by courts or tribunals. That includes the European convention on human rights; the refugee convention; the international covenant on civil and political rights; the United Nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings which opened at Warsaw on 16 May 2005; customary international law; and
“any other international law, or convention or rule of international law, whatsoever, including any order, judgment, decision or measure of the European Court of Human Rights.”
The Prime Minister has been crystal clear that he, and the Government he leads, will not let foreign courts destroy this Rwanda plan and curtail our efforts to break the business model of the evil people-smuggling gangs.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend makes the point about foreign courts, but what about domestic courts? Is there not a danger that, in pursuing quite stringent measures in this Bill, we are really testing the principle of comity to breaking point? This House and this Parliament are sovereign, but we also have the independence of the courts and the rule of law to bear in mind, and restraint on both sides—by the judiciary and by this place—is essential if we are to maintain the balance of our constitution.
James Cleverly
My right hon. and learned Friend knows I have a huge amount of respect for him, not just as a friend and an individual, but for his experience at the Bar at a very high level. He raises an important point, and I want to give him complete reassurance that we have looked very carefully at that balance he speaks about and we respect the importance of that. We genuinely believe this Bill gets the balance right, although, because of the growing nature of this extreme and perverse trade in human misery, we have to take firm action. We are therefore acting in a way that maintains that balance. It is novel. He says it is contentious, and that is true, but we are doing it because we have to break this business model. We have to do this.
When the European Court of Human Rights—this speaks to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) just a moment ago—indicates an interim measure relating to the intended removal of someone to Rwanda under, or purportedly under, a provision of the Immigration Act, a Minister of the Crown alone, not a court or tribunal, will decide whether the UK will comply with that interim measure.
In order to further prevent individual claims to prevent removal, the Bill disapplies certain relevant provisions from the Human Rights Act 1998 in particular circumstances, including sections 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9. This is lawful, this is fair, this is necessary, because we have now addressed every reason that has been used to prevent removal to Rwanda. We have blocked asylum claims from being admitted with legislation that has already passed through this House: when the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is enforced, modern slavery disqualification provisions will assist with speedy removal.
The only possible blocking of removal is if an individual can demonstrate, with compelling evidence, that there is an immediate risk of serious and irreversible harm to them in particular under their individual circumstances. That sets the bar rightly very high, so that the chances of that happening are rightly extremely small. The only way to deter people from coming here illegally is to convince them that if they do, they will be unable to stay. Instead, they will be detained and swiftly removed to a safe third country, or their home country, if it is safe to do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Cleverly
I will conclude, as I have been on my feet for a while.
This is how we will save lives at sea. This is how we will deter illegal migration. And this—the House should take note—is how we will break the business model of the most evil and perverse trade that we currently can see: the trade in vulnerable people. The people smugglers are not humanitarians; they are vicious criminals, and we must take action to stop them. This is how we restore confidence in our immigration system and assert full control over our borders.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Cleverly
I am nearly done; let me conclude.
This is how we will overcome the intolerable pressure on taxpayers, public services and local communities that illegal immigration creates. That is how we will ensure that the system is fair: fair to those who play by the rules and fair to the British people, who are rightly sick of people arriving here from France in small boats—from France, a safe and wonderful country. Rwanda stands ready to welcome those new arrivals. It stands ready to work with us to find a solution on this global issue, rather than being part of a problem, and for that, I believe, it should have our thanks and admiration. This is an innovative and humane solution to a growing global problem. Other countries are looking at what we are doing and making similar plans of their own. A new treaty and this Bill make it clear in law that Rwanda is a safe country to which to relocate illegal migrants.
I want to extend an offer to the whole House. Colleagues across this House must know how much this matters to our constituents. Our voters, no matter which party they vote for, are warm and welcoming people to those in genuine need. We have seen that in the way in which people across this country have opened their homes to many of the half a million people who have come here via safe and legal routes in the past decade. But the British people rightly expect everyone to play by the rules, and they expect us in this House to do what it takes to stop the boats. That is what voting for this legislation means. Our voters are horrified when they see images of people drowning in the channel. They are horrified when they see people smugglers taking advantage of people. They want an end to illegal migration. This Government have a plan that will provide an alternative home for illegal arrivals to the UK and deter others from coming here illegally. I commend the Bill to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House, while affirming support for securing the UK’s borders, reforming the broken asylum system and ending dangerous small boat crossings, declines to give a Second Reading to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill because the Bill will not work to tackle people smuggling gangs, end small boat crossings or achieve the core purposes of the Bill, will lead to substantial costs to the UK taxpayer every year whilst applying to less than one per cent of those who claim asylum in the UK, threatens the UK’s compliance with international law, further undermines the potential to establish security and returns agreements with other countries and does not prevent the return of relocated individuals who commit serious crimes in Rwanda back to the UK.”
I join the Home Secretary in expressing our sympathy for the family and friends of the asylum seeker who has apparently died on the Bibby Stockholm. I understand that the Home Secretary cannot say more about that at the moment.
This should be a debate about how we prevent lives being lost, about how we strengthen our border security, about how we stop dangerous boat crossings, and about how we fix the broken asylum system. Instead, we have just got total Tory chaos. What a fine mess this weak Prime Minister has got them all into, and got the country into as well. They are tearing lumps out of each other over a failing policy while letting the country down.
A Home Secretary has been sacked, an Immigration Minister has resigned, and the Tories have spent almost £300 million of taxpayers’ money on Rwanda without sending a single person. The Home Secretary seemed to confirm today that, in fact, it is £400 million without a single person being sent. More Home Secretaries have been sent to Rwanda than asylum seekers—that is about £100 million per trip. The climate Minister, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), has been called back from the Dubai COP for the vote. Well, I guess the Government can say that at least one flight has taken off as a result of the legislation.
We have had the third Tory Home Secretary sent to Rwanda in two years, the third bilateral agreement with Rwanda in two years, and now the third Tory law on asylum and Rwanda in two years. And they are about to write their fourth cheque to Rwanda. It turns out that they set up a direct debit: hundreds of millions of pounds for a failing scheme that is only ever likely to cover a few hundred people—less than 1% of those claiming asylum last year—and has become a proxy for the deep civil wars in the Tory party.
In this carousel of Conservative chaos, we have the European Research Group, the Northern Research Group, the New Conservatives, the old Conservatives, the One Nation group, the implausibly named Conservative Growth Group, and if you thought that was an oxymoron, Mr Speaker, we also have the Conservative Common Sense Group. Seriously, there are so many fighting factions, but they all have one thing in common: they do not believe in the Bill.
The Prime Minister was forced into an emergency breakfast meeting this morning—less a smoked salmon offensive; more buttering up his MPs with bacon butties, and sides of briefing and backstabbing—promising his MPs amendments and then rowing back, telling them that he really wants to break international law but that the Rwandan Government will not let him. He is hiding behind the Kigali Administration because he is too weak to even defend his plan. Weak, weak, weak.
The Prime Minister says that his patience is wearing thin. Well, how do the Tories think the country feels when watching this chaos? He is hoping that his party will calm down over Christmas, but they all know who the Christmas turkey is, and he is sitting in No. 10.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman hopes that his Prime Minister has a plan, but no Back Bencher on either side of the House seems to agree with it. We are clear that what we should be doing is using the hundreds of millions of pounds that the Government are wasting in cheques written to Rwanda for nothing—for a scheme that will send, at best, only a few hundred people—to strengthen our border security, go after the criminal gangs, and make sure that we clear the asylum backlog and save the taxpayer billions of pounds. [Interruption.] Actually, he has not. The Home Secretary likes to claim that he is doing that; he likes to claim that he is bringing down the number of people in hotels, but in fact that number has gone up to a record high of 56,000. Since the Prime Minister said he was going to end asylum hotel use, it has gone up by a further 10,000, because he is failing.
I welcome the new immigration Ministers to their posts, one of whom, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), has been an immigration Minister before. I think that during the time he was immigration Minister, net migration trebled and the number of boat crossings also trebled, but I am sure nobody will hold that against him. The Government have obviously appointed two immigration Ministers this time in case another one resigns because he thinks their policy is totally failing and too weak. In the words of the ex-immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), this new law will not work, “doesn’t do the job”, and is
“both legally and operationally fundamentally flawed.”
Yvette Cooper
I will give way to the hon. Member if he can say whether he agrees with the previous immigration Minister or the current one.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for asking me questions; she overestimates my ability. Talking of Christmas turkeys, this morning the Leader of the Opposition gave an interview on Radio 4 that, typically, contained no policy whatsoever. Can she outline how she would reduce immigration and tackle the problems that she is castigating this Government for, given that everything she says she would do, the Government are already doing?
Yvette Cooper
The trouble is that they are not—they are just not. The scale of the Government’s operations to go after the criminal gangs is tiny. The £300 million that the Government have already committed to Rwanda is a third of the budget of the National Crime Agency. They are prepared to put that investment into Rwanda—into this tiny scheme that will affect only a couple hundred people—but are totally failing to invest sufficiently in tackling the criminal gangs, working with Europol and going after the supply chains. There are warehouses of boats across Europe that the European police forces are totally failing to go after, which our party has said we would go after. We would work with Europol and get new security arrangements in place, which again, the Government are failing to do.
Instead, we have the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), who signed the last agreement and brought forward the last piece of legislation, saying that the Bill is fatally flawed and will not stop the boats. Yesterday we had Back Benchers saying that the Bill should have been pulled because it is partial and incomplete, and the Home Secretary—who privately called this whole thing “batshit”—is out to bat for it today, even though he knows it will not work.
This is the Tories’ asylum crisis. Five years ago, we did not have a major problem with dangerous boat crossings, but they let criminal gangs take hold along the channel. They failed to work with France at the beginning when they had the chance, and they let smugglers spread their tentacles along the coast, organising dangerous boat crossings that undermine border security and put lives at risk.
At the same time, the Tories let Home Office decision making collapse. They decided to downgrade the skills and experience of caseworkers, then shrugged their shoulders when productivity dropped. They failed to return people—they have let returns collapse, down by 50% compared with the last Labour Government. The next Labour Government, if we are elected, would set up a new major returns unit with, 1,000 additional staff to increase returns. Rather than the total number of returns collapsing and the Government failing to return people who have no right to be here, our party would introduce a new returns unit to make sure we have proper enforcement. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Just shouting at the shadow Home Secretary is not a good look. You should be listening to what she has to say.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Will the right hon. Lady give way on the last point?
Layla Moran
I am extremely grateful. Is this not just a fig leaf for a completely incompetent Home Office? I have a constituent who has exhausted his leave to remain and wants to go back to Fiji. He applied to the voluntary returns service in September and gave his passport to the Home Office in December—that was in 2022. The local church is going to pay for his ticket, yet he still cannot return. If the Home Office cannot deal with cases like that, how can we trust it with anything else?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is totally right. I have now heard of a series of failed asylum cases in which people want to return to their home countries and have applied to the Home Office to be able to do so, and the Home Office has told them that they will have to wait six months because it is so incapable of getting a grip. In the case that the hon. Member has raised, somebody has been waiting for 12 months to be able to return to their home country. There has been a 50% drop in returns compared with the last Labour Government, because the Tories always go after gimmicks and they never get a grip. There are 40,000 people whose asylum applications have failed and who have not been returned, and 17,000 people the Government have just lost—they do not even know where they are. It was their policy to let the backlog soar and put 56,000 people in hotels. This is the Tories’ asylum crisis, and they are failing to fix it.
The Prime Minister has made this legislation—this policy—the Tories’ flagship. It is extortionately expensive, and it is failing. Ministers have repeatedly tried to hide the cost: just 10 days ago, the Home Secretary was trying to suggest that it was only £140 million. It has already cost twice that for nobody to be sent, under a scheme that Home Office officials have described as unenforceable and at high risk of fraud. Those hundreds of millions of pounds could now be £400 million, and I would like whichever immigration Minister winds up today’s debate to explain whether this is now, in fact, a £400 million plan. That is hundreds of millions of pounds that could have been spent on thousands more police to boost our border security and smash the criminal gangs. It could have been used to clear the backlog entirely, end hotel use and save us a further couple of billion pounds, or train 1,000 doctors or 4,500 nurses.
Of course, if the Government manage to send people to Rwanda, they will have to spend further money, probably around £200,000 per person—perhaps the Minister could also confirm that figure. That is more than twice as much as it costs here in the UK, so can the Government confirm that by the time they have finished, close to half a billion pounds will have been paid to Rwanda for just a few hundred people, around 1% of those arriving in the country? The Court of Appeal has said that there is only capacity in Rwanda for around 100 people; even the judge who agreed with the Government said that talk of thousands is “political hyperbole”. The asylum system in Rwanda is also limited: it has only processed an average of 100 people a year for the past three years, so at most, it will be a few hundred people. Some 56,000 people are in hotels, 100,000 applied for asylum last year and 160,000 are waiting in the backlog, so potentially less than 0.1% of those people will be covered by the scheme. It is no wonder that the permanent secretary said yesterday:
“We don’t have evidence of a deterrent effect”.
The Government are now on their third new law in two years. The Home Secretary said that the Bill means
“if you enter Britain illegally, you will be detained and swiftly removed…to a safe third country, such as Rwanda”—[Official Report, 7 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 152.]—
except that was not the current Home Secretary, but his predecessor, talking about the last Bill: the Illegal Migration Act 2023, passed four months ago. The main section of that Act has not actually been enacted, because the Government know it will not work. The Home Secretary has also said that the Bill will
“deter illegal entry into the UK”—[Official Report, 24 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 922.]
and that anyone who arrives illegally will be sent
“to the country they arrived from or a safe third country”,
but that also was not this Home Secretary or this Bill: it was his predecessor but four, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), when she introduced the main provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, passed 18 months ago. The main section of that Act has been revoked because it made things worse. The first Act was largely revoked because it made things worse, and the second one is not yet in force because the Government know it will not work, so forgive us for not believing a single word about the Bill that is before us today. We have heard it all before.
When he responds to the debate, the immigration Minister should explain what is going to happen about clause 2 of the Illegal Migration Act, which requires the Home Secretary to remove everyone to Rwanda or elsewhere if they arrived after July. The Government have put that provision on hold, apparently until after Rwanda gets off the ground, but even if they do manage to do that quickly, more than 15,000 people will have arrived in the country on small boats since then, all of whom the Government have now promised to send to Rwanda. If Rwanda is only going to take a few hundred people a year, it is going to take the Government over 100 years to send those 15,000 people who have arrived since they passed the last law. It will take them 10 years to send everyone who has arrived in the last fortnight alone. In the meantime, while they focus on this gimmick, they are failing to get a grip and they are failing to bring down the backlog. Instead, we have people in asylum hotels at the taxpayers’ expense at the astronomical cost of £8 million a day.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I have listened with interest for almost 15 minutes to hear what the shadow Home Secretary’s solution is to this incredibly difficult problem. She rightly refers to the fact that we have asylum seekers in hotels at considerable cost, and to the considerable difficulty when it comes to their distribution to our local authorities for all of us as constituency MPs, but I have not heard a single word about recognising that the Government are coming up with a solution that, while it may not work completely, may have a deterrent effect and may be a welcome step in a series of steps to help reduce illegal immigration into our country. Does she not recognise that?
Yvette Cooper
Well, £400 million for a failing plan is a hell of a lot of money. What we need to do is clear the backlog, and Labour has set out a proposal for 1,000 new caseworkers to clear the backlog and for a new returns unit to make sure that, instead of this 50% collapse in returns, we actually return people who have no right to be here. Do that—clear the asylum backlog and end the asylum hotels—and that will save the taxpayer £2 billion. Instead of throwing away hundreds of millions of pounds, it will save the taxpayer billions of pounds.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Yvette Cooper
I will give way to my former colleague on the Home Affairs Committee.
Rehman Chishti
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, and we did indeed work together on the Home Affairs Committee. I am a Kent Member of Parliament, and we need to make sure that we take firm and decisive action to deal with illegal migration. I am open-minded in looking at this Bill to see whether it delivers that. Does she agree—I tried to intervene on the Home Secretary on this point—that there are a number of people in the UK who have lost their asylum claims, yet are still in the UK? What are we going to do, and what is the Opposition’s plan to ensure that those people are removed, which would be a deterrent? I have not been given the numbers of how many of those who have lost all their claims have been removed in the last year, over the last two years or over the last three years, but if we want a deterrent, we need to look at that as well as at this Bill.
Yvette Cooper
I totally agree with the hon. Member. That is why I hope there will be cross-party support for a plan to have a major new returns unit to turn that around. We have 40,000 people here who have had their claim rejected and should be returned, and they are not being returned. There has been a 50% drop in returns under the Conservatives over the 13 years of the Conservative Government, and a further 17,000 people have just disappeared into the system altogether, where there should be proper enforcement. However, the Government are not taking action on any of those things. There is no grip on the system, so Labour would set up a major new returns unit, with 1,000 staff, to make sure that we have proper enforcement in place. The combination of that and the caseworkers will save the taxpayer £2 billion.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Yvette Cooper
I will make some progress first.
On the treaty and the Bill before us, the treaty says that numbers are limited by Rwandan capacity. The number of vulnerable refugees sent here, of course, is not limited. The treaty says Rwanda can terminate the deal at any time and does not have to take anybody. The treaty also says the UK will fund support for asylum seekers and people granted refugee status for five years. That includes accommodation and three meals a day for five years, which is more than here in the UK. It says that people cannot be sent anywhere else, but can be sent back to the UK, and the immigration Minister—or one of them at least—has confirmed that if someone commits a terrible crime in Rwanda, the Rwandan justice system does not have to deal with them, but can just send those criminals back to the UK. You could not make it up: we have trafficking and torture victims and Afghans who helped our armed forces and fled the Taliban sent to Rwanda, but convicted criminals sent back here.
The Bill before us is a total mess, which is why all sides of the Conservative party do not like it, even though most of them will still vote for it because they are in such a mess. Some of them want to stop all court challenges. Actually, I think some of them probably want to stop all courts, because they have long ripped up being the party of law and order or of the rule of law. Some of them want the UK to pull out of the European convention on human rights, no matter the consequences for the Good Friday agreement, the Windsor framework or the prospect of any future security or returns agreements with other countries. Then we have the really astonishing scene of the British Prime Minister claiming that somehow the Rwandan Government’s commitment to the ECHR is the reason why he cannot possibly breach it, and that they are keeping the British Prime Minister on the straight and narrow, even though the Rwandan Government were found by the British Supreme Court to be in breach of international law. This is kind of through the looking glass now.
Do the Rwandan Government suddenly care about the European convention on human rights, or did the Prime Minister ask them to say that they wanted the European convention on human rights to be complied with, because he was too weak to tell his Back Benchers that he actually thinks our great country should abide by the international laws that we helped to write and that we currently urge everyone else to follow?
Sir Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
The shadow Home Secretary will understand the passion and anger that many of our constituents feel—in my own constituency, we have four hotels full of people waiting for their asylum determination—and they want this sorted out. The Government have come forward with a plan, and she is eloquently explaining her reservations about that plan and committing to cancel it. She is also explaining what she would do if she were charged with responsibility for this policy in the Home Office. We have 12 months until the country has to face a general election. What timeline would the right hon. Lady put on ending the boats if her policy was enacted, and will she give that date to the British people from the Dispatch Box today?
Yvette Cooper
I think the right hon. Member is just highlighting the failure of those on his Front Bench. All of us should want to stop these dangerous boat crossings. They are undermining border security and they are putting lives at risk. We should be seeking to smash the criminal gangs and we should be seeking to strengthen our border security. We should be seeking to return people who have no right to be here, and we should be seeking to fix the chaos in the asylum system. Most people want to see both strong border security and a fair, effective and properly controlled and managed asylum system, which we do not have at the moment. That means clearing the backlog, setting up a new returns unit and seeking to work with France and Albania. We actually agree with the Government on that and support the work the Government have done, but the work with France, Albania and other countries should be going much further so that we have European co-operation in place. All of us should be seeking to do that, instead of having this total chaos on a gimmick that is not about getting a grip.
Yvette Cooper
I will make some progress, and then I will give way to the right hon. Member.
The problem is that, even as the Bill stands, it risks breaking international law, and that makes it harder to get further returns agreements and to get the further security co-operation that we need with our nearest neighbours. It is also why, if the One Nation group supports it, that puts its members in a pretty impossible position. Clause 1(5) says that a safe country is
“a country to which persons may be removed…in compliance with…international law”.
Clause 2(1) says:
“Every decision-maker must…treat…Rwanda as…safe”,
even if it is not. So even if Rwanda does what it did over the Israel-Rwanda deal and breaches international law and sends people back for refoulement, even if Rwanda introduces new policies to send people abroad, even if there is a coup in Rwanda, even if Rwanda fails to stop organised gangs moving people to the border, even if asylum seekers are shot at in Rwanda—all things that the Supreme Court found had happened in the past—and even if the treaty is designed in good faith, if it fails, the Government are still saying that British courts cannot consider the facts.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Yvette Cooper
I will give way. I did promise to give way to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir Simon Clarke), and I will come back to him in the moment.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
Is there a fundamental difference between the Government deeming Rwanda safe and the Labour Government, as they did in 2004, deeming a whole list of countries safe in precisely the same way and with precisely the same legislative technique?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that that is not the case, because what the Government have done is both to deem and to remove any capacity for the courts to consider the facts.
We can see how absurd even Government figures think this is. The Home Office’s legal guidance, published yesterday, quotes legal judgments. One says that
“the court should not shrink from applying the fiction created by the deeming provision”.
Another states:
“The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries”.
The mind does indeed boggle. The problem for the Home Secretary and the One Nation group is that, even as it stands, the Government are effectively admitting that they are creating legal fictions. They are saying that rather than following the facts, the courts will have to follow those fictions instead, for the sake of a tiny scheme that costs not just £300 million, but possibly £400 million. It also sets a precedent.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, as I said I would come back to him, and then I will come back to the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox).
Sir Simon Clarke
There are two points to correct in the right hon. Lady’s narrative about what Labour would do that the Government are not doing. The first is that the Government are already doing much of what she lists, and I can attest to that, having funded it in various different capacities. She also misses the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) made a moment ago. We are dealing in this instance with the consequences of large numbers of people coming to this country, not with the cause. Rwanda seeks to address the incentives driving this evil trade. It is only by getting Rwanda to work that we change the calculus not only for the people making the crossing, but for the people expediting it, who are the criminal gangs. Does the right hon. Lady not recognise that that is why this scheme is so important?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the right hon. Lady, I stress that when people make interventions, not only should they be fairly short, but having done so, it is important to stay for the rest of the speech. Some people have been wandering out, having made an intervention. Anyone who is thinking of making an intervention, please bear in mind that you then have to stay for the entirety of the speech.
Yvette Cooper
The problem for the right hon. Member is that he has a scheme that is likely now to cost £400 million and that is only likely to cover less than 1%, and perhaps less than 0.1%, of the people arriving in this country. That is why the permanent secretary has said that there is no evidence of a deterrent. We need the practical measures to take action to go after the criminal gangs and to work with our neighbours. He says that the Government are doing that already, so how come there has been a drop of 30% in the number of people convicted for people smuggling? If they are really going after the criminal gangs when we know that people smuggling across the channel has rocketed, how come convictions for people smuggling have plummeted by 30%? That is the evidence that the Government are failing to do the basics to tackle those practical things.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The right hon. Lady is making a powerful case that seeking to legislate by assertion that Rwanda is safe is as dangerous as it is ridiculous. Does she agree that those who claim that this is about parliamentary sovereignty, and that that is why this sinister attack is justified, are wrong, because Parliament can be meaningfully sovereign only within a functioning legal and constitutional system, which this Bill totally undermines? Without the courts being able to interpret law, the legal system does not work, and it undermines this place, too.
Yvette Cooper
We have constitutional roles for Parliament and the courts. It is right for Parliament to respond to court judgments, to adapt and to change policy, but this Bill instead puts at risk the compliance with international law that we need to be able to make further agreements.
I do not think that, in the end, all of this is about Rwanda; it is about the deep divides in the Conservative party. It is about their chaos. It is about the Prime Minister’s inability to show leadership. It is about the fact that they just want to tear lumps out of each other. They are creating chaos while letting the country down.
The former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark, has said that the Government are now aiming for just
“one or two symbolic flights off before the next election with a handful of illegal migrants on them”.
That is not the same as stopping the boats, strengthening border security or fixing the asylum chaos.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way, because I know that the right hon. Member likes to think of himself as the leader of the Common Sense Group of Conservatives.
Sir John Hayes
The right hon. Lady is right; I am the very personification of common sense, as she has just acknowledged. The real divide is between those people, very largely on the Opposition Benches, who believe that international law trumps the supremacy of this place, and those who believe that the reason this place is supreme is that our legitimacy is derived from the people. For that reason, only a polity can make law. International treaties matter, but they do not matter as much when it comes to this kind of legislation and the people expressing their will through those they elect to speak for them.
Yvette Cooper
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are discussing this legislation not because of a European court, but because of a decision by a British court: the Supreme Court. It made a decision based on British laws. I know that there are Members on the Government Back Benches who want to make everything about the European courts, and that is the heart of their dilemma. They want to get rid of the European convention on human rights. The Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have all said that they do not and they will not. That is at the heart of the Conservatives’ divides and chaos. That is what their row is all about. It is not about having a workable solution to the serious problem of our border security being undermined, of dangerous boat crossings that are putting lives at risk and of criminal gangs whose profits have soared as a result of effectively being allowed to let rip along the channel, because the UK and France have failed to work together sufficiently to stop them.
Marco Longhi
I will quote article 21 of the ECHR, which clearly the right hon. Lady likes to support in so many ways:
“The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government”.
I do not understand how the will of the British people is being expressed within the European convention on human rights and through European courts—perhaps she can explain.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member’s problem is with those on his Front Bench. His problem is with his own Home Secretary, his own Foreign Secretary and his own Prime Minister. He wants to make all of this about Europe, rather than about our having a proper border security plan, a proper plan to clear the backlog and a proper plan to fix the asylum chaos that the Tories have created.
Instead of wasting taxpayers’ money, instead of these performative rituals and instead of all the deeming, boggling and scheming, we should be trying to build cross-party consensus on what needs to be done. [Laughter.] The Tories cannot even build consensus within their own party, so I accept that that is particularly hard for them at the moment. We should be trying to build a cross-party consensus on what needs to be done to stop the boat crossings that are undermining border security and putting lives at risk.
We should be strengthening border security, smashing the criminal gangs that have spread their tentacles and going after the supply chains, instead of ignoring these warehouses and these lorryloads of boats crossing Europe unchallenged. We should be getting real-time security information, instead of carrying on with the ludicrous situation where we do not even know when suspected smuggler operatives are flying into our country. We should be getting prosecutions and convictions for the smuggler gangs and their vile trade. We should be clearing the backlog, not making it bigger, and ending asylum hotel use. We should be doing more of the things we support, such as the co-operation with France, the deal with Albania and getting more workable deals in place. We should be working together across this country and with other countries to stop dangerous boats, to smash the gangs, to strengthen our border security and, ultimately, to save lives. It is time to end all this chaos, time to ditch the gimmicks, and time for the Government to get a grip.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It is obvious that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. I therefore ask that, to start with, Members speak for a maximum of eight minutes. I will not put on a time limit, but I am relying on colleagues to stick to that.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
The decision to leave office is always a difficult one. The decision to disagree with the Prime Minister—someone I want to support in good times and bad—is always a difficult one, but politicians are sent here to make difficult decisions. No one is forced to be a Minister. With high office comes responsibility, and no responsibility is greater than protecting our borders and securing us from untold damage as a result of mass illegal migration.
We have made huge progress as a country over the last year as a result of the work that the former Home Secretary—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman)—the Prime Minister and I have done, and I wish my right hon. Friend the new Home Secretary and his Ministers all the best in taking that work forward. Our record stands among the best of any European country. We have, as my right hon. Friend said, reduced the number of small boat arrivals to our country by one third. That compares with a one-third increase across Europe, and an almost 100% increase on Europe’s southern border in Italy, so the plan that the Prime Minister set out a year ago is working. It is the most comprehensive plan of any European country.
We have just heard from the Opposition that they have no plan at all. They said that even if the Rwanda scheme was working and having the deterrent effect we all want, they would still scrap it, because ultimately they do not believe in border security and they cannot be trusted to protect our borders. But this problem is not going away. It is going to be one of the defining issues of the 21st century. There are millions of people on the move—some are fleeing climate change and persecution, while others are economic migrants understandably in search of a better life. It is a great compliment to our country that so many want to come here, but it is not sustainable.
Robert Jenrick
I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.
We have to secure our borders, which means that all the good work that we have done over the course of the last year—the Albania deal, the asylum backlog work, and the deals with Bulgaria, France, Italy and others—is not enough. We are not going to stop the boats purely through that work. We have to interject the strongest possible deterrent, and the best deterrent—the only deterrent—that we can use in the course of the next 12 months is the Rwanda deal. That is why it is so critical that we get it up and running.
I genuinely believe, having immersed myself in this issue for 14 months, that this is a good policy, that it can work and that it will help our country to fight back against this great scourge. In my job, I have seen the consequences of that every day. I have gone with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) to meet her constituents whose homes have been broken into and whose lives have been ruined by illegal migrants. I have spent time with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Sir Conor Burns) and read about his constituent who was murdered by an asylum seeker, who posed as a child and then killed somebody on the streets of Bournemouth. I have worked with almost every Member of this House on their determination to close asylum hotels. Even the greatest advocates for open borders change their minds when there is an asylum hotel in their constituency. Hypocrisy is all over this issue.
That is why we have to fix this problem. When I said “whatever it takes”, I meant it, and I honestly believe that that view is shared by all of us on this side of the House and many good colleagues on the other side as well. To do that, we have to make sure that this policy works. This is a good-faith disagreement—there are good people on both sides of the House, and certainly within my party, who have disagreements about how we can make the policy work—but my point of view is this: untold damage is being done to our country and this issue will be with us for years, if not decades, to come. If we do not operationalise this policy correctly, we will see the numbers rise for many years to come. If, God forbid, there was a Labour Government, there would be a decade of small boat arrivals. I want to stop that.
To my mind, there are two big flaws with this Bill. First, as I have said to many who have asked me, including on the media, it does not address the question of individual claims. If I have learnt anything in this job, it is that those seeking to frustrate their removal from our country will stop at nothing. The small-boat-chasing law firms and legal representatives will help them to fight, each and every way. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. Even the best-meant things the country has done in recent years, such as our world-leading modern slavery laws, are abused. Some 70% of the people we are seeking to remove put in a modern slavery claim at the eleventh hour.
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way at the moment.
This is proven to be correct every time, so why would we not put into the Bill a provision that says that those people cannot bring forward individual claims?
Robert Jenrick
I will give way in a moment.
First, such a provision would bring legal certainty; secondly, there are operational reasons for it. I have met no one who really understands the operationalisation of the policy who does not believe such a provision is crucial. Those advisers have told me time and again that the scheme will be seriously impeded. People will put in claims and go to court. The upper tier tribunal, which is already under pressure, will be overwhelmed. Our detention capacity—just a few thousand spaces—will be full. In a single week in August, 2,000 beds in our detention facilities could be filled. Those arrivals will go on to our streets. They will abscond, as they always do, never to be seen again, and the scheme will be brought into quick disrepute. I do not want to see that happen. I will give way to the right hon. Lady.
Dame Meg Hillier
The right hon. Gentleman casts aspersions on Labour’s approach to this issue. He is in the presence of two former Immigration Ministers: myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). At the end of the last Labour Government, there was one person being returned every eight minutes. I know from my own caseload that people who have reached the end of the line are still dribbling around the system, even though, as others have raised, they want to leave the country. What was the right hon. Gentleman’s record after 14 months as an Immigration Minister?
Robert Jenrick
There has been a tenfold increase in the pace of asylum decision making, so we have absolutely transformed the decision-making system. We have massively increased the number of returns—the hon. Lady is on rocky ground on this one, I am afraid—as 22,000 people have been returned. The difference between our side of the House and hers is that we have the guts and the determination to fix this problem once and for all, which means interjecting the strongest possible deterrent. Were there a Labour Government, I would worry for this country, because we would see a massive increase in the number of small boat arrivals, and the people smugglers would be celebrating. That is why it is so important to Conservative Members that we—
Robert Jenrick
With all due respect, I will not give way, because I only have a few minutes left.
We need to use the time that we have left in government before the general election. Of course, I hope we win the next general election, but the public are watching us. They expect us to fix this problem, so why would we not put into the Bill all the strongest protections at our disposal?
On the second important thing that needs to change in the Bill, it is inevitable, in the light of the Supreme Court’s judgment, that the Strasbourg Court will impose further rule 39 interim measures. That is, after all, what bedevilled the flight arranged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) a year or so ago. We have to stop that. It is a matter of sovereignty for our country that Ministers, acting on the instructions of Parliament, do not allow the flights to be delayed.
The provision in the Bill is sophistry. It is the express policy of the Government that rule 39 injunctions are binding and that to ignore them would be a breach of international law. We are being asked to vote for a provision that it would be illegal to use. I do not want to be in the position that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham, whose determination I do not doubt, was in. I do not want my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or my successors as Immigration Minister to be in that position. We as a House are giving them a hard deal and doing them a disservice if we allow the Bill to continue in that way. They must have the full power of Parliament to ignore those rule 39 injunctions and get those flights in the air.
There are things that others will contribute, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on his work drawing out some of the other challenges with the Bill, so I will close with this. This is not a bad Bill, but it is not the best Bill. I want the Bill to work. The test of this policy is not, “Is it the strongest Bill that we have done?”, or, “Is it a good compromise?” It is: “Will it work?” That is all the public care about. They do not care about Rwanda as a scheme; they care about stopping the boats, and we are sent here to do that for them. I will never elevate contested notions of international law over the interests of my constituents or vital national interests such as national security and border security. The Bill could be so much better. Let us make it better. Let us make it work.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I wish to speak to the reasoned amendment that stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends.
Before I do so, I want to remark on the tragic news that has emerged that an asylum seeker aboard the Bibby Stockholm was found dead this morning. We do not know yet what the cause was, and we sympathise for that person and everybody who loved them, but what I do know is that our words and our policies in this place have consequences. We should all reflect on that in the debate.
The UK’s approach to migration, both legal and illegal, has been nothing short of chaotic, with poisonous rhetoric swirling around the plight of the world’s most vulnerable at the channel on a stormy night. Let me take a moment to reflect on how the Tories have brought us to this parlous state. A former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), doubled down on Labour’s hostile environment policy in a speech 11 long years ago. She promised to make life really difficult for those who came to our shores, deporting first and hearing appeals later. The Immigration Acts of 2014 and 2016 fostered a toxic culture of suspicion and disbelief in the Home Office, turning health staff, employers and landlords into border guards. That led to the Windrush scandal, the test of English for international communication scandal, and lives fractured and still not put back together. It led to “Go home” vans and the highly skilled migrants paragraph 322(5) scandal. It led to people being forcibly removed despite having done nothing wrong. It led directly to the dehumanisation found by the Brook House inquiry and to the rampant spread of covid and scabies in Napier barracks.
The Tories tightened up on the lorries, and then we had small boats. The talk got ever tougher. The cry of “Stop the boats” went out, and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 came and went. The boats kept coming. The Illegal Migration Act 2023 was passed and, oddly enough, did not prove to be much of a deterrent, either. Today, we have the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill before us, which the Tories claim will be the one to do it. Well, they think that the third time is the charm, so maybe it will or maybe it will not. I am not terribly convinced, but the permanent secretary told a Committee yesterday that there is no evidence that it will be a deterrent, either.
This is policy in a death spiral, tougher and tougher, turning the screw and threatening people with rendition flights to Rwanda. It will not work, because nothing the Government have done before has worked. Why? Because it does not deal with the reason why people are coming here.
People will continue to put themselves in small boats because they feel there is no alternative. They come to reunite with family because of historical ties and because of the English language. It is all too easy to dehumanise, to speak of scourges, swarms and hordes, to speak of those who try to come here with no papers as somehow wanting to cheat the system and skip the queue. As the MP with the highest immigration caseload in Scotland, I see many of those people referred to by Ministers at my surgeries week in, week out. I have to look them in the eye, as I know so many Tory Members do not have to. I have 138 outstanding immigration cases—would the Home Secretary care to look at his inbox once in a while?
I will speak instead briefly about some of my constituents. I will call the first constituent Mohammed, to protect his anonymity. He came here from Sudan and got refugee status. He applied for his wife to come and, after nine months of waiting for that application, he came to my surgery in March. In April, conflict broke out in Sudan. His wife’s family fled to Egypt, but, because her paperwork was in the closed visa application centre, she could not go. In May, I was told that the case was allocated to a decision maker but that the visa application centre in Khartoum was still closed. By October, the case was still with a decision maker, but there was no timescale for a decision, I was told.
On Friday, Mohammed came to my advice surgery to show me pictures of a gunshot wound to his wife’s leg and video footage of those who had been killed in the same incident. I ask Tory Members what they would do if it was their wife. There is no safe and legal route from Sudan, and the family reunion route is demonstrably not working in the face of an ongoing conflict. Would they advise her to sit tight and wait for a year and a half for the appropriate paperwork, or should she try to cross international borders, by whatever means, to get to her husband and to safety in Glasgow? She is not wanting to skip the queue; she just wants the paperwork done by the Home Office.
How about the constituents who I will call Mr and Mrs R? They were unlucky enough to be visiting family in Afghanistan with their five children when it fell. With significant difficulty and scant assistance from UK officials, they were eventually able to return to Glasgow several months later, yet they contact me regularly about the family members they had had to leave behind. Despite the much-touted Afghan schemes, there is no route for them. Their relatives fled to Pakistan and had to leave everything behind, including their paperwork. The Government of Pakistan are now sending people back to Afghanistan—into the hands of the very Taliban they fled from. I ask Tory Members again: what would they advise Mr and Mrs R’s family to do? Should they ask the Taliban for a passport, wait for the Taliban to come to their door, wait for the Pakistani Government to arrest them, or should they try another route?
It is no accident that Afghans make up the greatest number of people in small boats. As Safe Passage has pointed out, in the first nine months of this year, just 279 Afghans came through official routes. For every person arriving through the Afghan schemes, 17 Afghans are crossing the channel in a small boat. This week, we have heard about how the Afghan relocations and assistance policy is leaving those who served with our armed forces at risk of execution.
I recently travelled with the Home Affairs Committee to hear more about what is happening in France and Belgium and their response to small boat crossings. The French Red Cross said that it works with the young unaccompanied asylum seekers it finds who are trying to cross the channel to reach family members in the UK. It tries to convince them of the merits of a family reunion application, but the backlog is so long and the casework so slow that they will inevitably wait for many months. Members in this place tend to forget that the channel is not the beginning of somebody’s journey but the end; it is the last leg. The channel holds little fear, given the dangerous journeys that some have already made to be here. It could not be more tempting to know that they are so nearly to safety.
If a humanitarian travel document existed, those same young people could avoid the perilous journey in a leaky rubber dinghy. They could get the same train or ferry that many millions of travellers do every year. They would not need to pay people smugglers at all—that would kill the business model at a stroke. It is the denial of that logical option that is placing people in danger. What are the Government offering instead? They are saying, “If you make that long and dangerous journey to our shores, your case will not be heard at all and you may be sent to Rwanda.”
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech and bringing real humanity to the debate. Is she aware that the people in Calais who are trying to cross the channel are homeless, poor, desperate, and often victims of war and human rights abuses, and that walking away from international law and international conventions will not offer protection to them or to any other desperate people in the world and will send a terrible message to the rest of the world that this country is turning its back on the international law that it established in 1948?
Alison Thewliss
The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Through the Bill, this country is turning its back on its international obligations. It is a pathetic excuse for policy—a foghorn signalling to the far right. It is too weak for some of the Home Secretary’s colleagues, but too harsh for a few exceptional others. For all the talk of full fat versus semi-skimmed, it is more akin to milk that has gone stagnant and sour—utterly repellent to decent people and best binned altogether, for everyone’s safety. For the SNP, the Bill is an abhorrence that undermines the UK’s international obligations and the principles of human rights. It costs a fortune and it is highly unlikely to achieve even its tawdry aims. We shall be tabling a prayer against the Rwanda treaty.
The legal experts I have heard from are appalled by the implications of proceeding with a Bill that, by the Home Secretary’s own frontispiece to it, cannot be declared compliant with the ECHR. The Home Secretary claims that he respects the Supreme Court’s decisions, but he comes here today with the sole purpose of overturning them and preventing the Court from ruling on anything ever again. For a Government to disapply human rights when it suits them, and instruct courts and public bodies to do likewise, is deeply troubling.
Liberty has stated that the Bill will
“tie the hands of every court in the UK while also abandoning the UK’s international commitments”.
Far be it from me to be concerned about the UK’s constitution or standing in the world, but I note that the Law Society of Scotland has questioned the UK’s rationale in disapplying a range of human rights agreements dating back 70 years, and the global implications of that departure from the international rights order. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, Justice and Freedom from Torture say that the Bill
“sends a devastating signal to the world about the UK’s reliability as an international partner”.
The Bill also begs the question whether breaking international law is something that the Rwandan Government would accept. Minister Vincent Biruta reportedly said:
“Without lawful behaviour by the UK, Rwanda would not be able to continue with the Migration and Economic Development Partnership.”
It is beneath contempt for the UK Government on the one hand to say, “We are presenting a treaty with Rwanda—marvel at how solid and unbreakable it is,” while, on the other, to tell us that they want to breach the human rights convention, the refugee convention, the 1966 international covenant on civil and political rights, the 1984 United Nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings agreed at Warsaw on 16 May 2005, as well as customary international law and any other laws that might get in their way, including from the European Court of Human Rights.
International law is binding: no welching, no backsies, no keys up. The Government are supposed to adhere to it; that is why they signed up to it in the first place. This is abject nonsense. The Law Society of England and Wales goes further, stating clearly that
“domestic legislation cannot immunise the Government from the enforcement of international law. To claim it can is disingenuous”.
It also states that refusing to comply with an interim measure would be a
“clear and serious breach of international law.”
It accuses the UK Government of using law to manufacture a reality. It is the time of year that we all indulge in some Christmas magic and imagine reindeers on the roof, but this UK Tory Government have asked the entire United Kingdom legal system to engage in a far more dangerous pretence.
The UK Supreme Court sought out the facts for itself and, upon clear and substantial evidence, found Rwanda to be unsafe. That seems most likely why the Government want to ban courts from doing that again, via this legislation. The Court spoke of the risk of refoulement and of sending people back into harm’s way. Indeed, if Rwanda were safe, why would it be able to send asylum seekers to the UK as part of the deal? The Rwandan opposition leader Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza was sentenced to 15 years in jail for speaking out against the Rwandan Government. Despite being released in 2018, to this day she still cannot exercise her political rights. She had to criticise the deal in the international media, because she says that the local media dare not give her a platform.
Alison Thewliss
If the right hon. Member can explain how Rwanda is safe, I will certainly give way.
Sir John Hayes
The key thing about this whole debate is the tension that the hon. Lady has described. Is she familiar with the rulings of Lord Denning, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Bingham and, more recently, Lord Reed, all of which directly contradict what she said about the balance between international law and laws passed by this Parliament? Does she acknowledge the truth that all those very distinguished jurists say the opposite of what she said?
Alison Thewliss
I acknowledge that different lawyers will have different opinions. In its briefing, the Law Society of England and Wales says that the Government are being disingenuous in what they are claiming, and I will take their word for it.
Joanna Cherry
The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) cites various judges, but the most supreme court in the United Kingdom is the UK Supreme Court, and it was very clear in the first Miller case that, although parliamentary sovereignty might mean that the law can be changed internally, this Parliament cannot legislate its way out of its international obligations. Does my hon. Friend agree that, no matter what various judges may have said at various times, it is a recent massive constitutional case of the UK Supreme Court that we should look to on this issue?
Alison Thewliss
My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely correct, and has knowledge of many of these issues. It is important to reflect on those cases and what they actually mean, rather than what Government Members wish they meant.
The Bill declares Rwanda safe in all circumstances. In so doing, it undermines the rule of law and the separation of powers, preventing the courts from establishing their own facts and driving a sleigh and a squad of reindeer through the principle of restraint. My tortured metaphor ends here because, far from being Santa, the Home Secretary makes the Grinch look generous; he truly does have a heart that is two sizes too small.
The treaty creates new rules for Rwanda but, in reality, nothing has changed in the weeks since the judgment. Lords Reed and Lloyd-Jones said that
“intentions and aspirations do not necessarily correspond to reality: the question is whether they are achievable in practice.”
The Supreme Court found that Rwanda has thus failed to meet international obligations and is unlikely to meet additional ones. There is no evidence that the long-term culture shift required is likely to happen quickly. Rwanda processed only 228 decisions on asylum claims in 2020, and rejected claims from countries such as Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Iran and Eritrea.
I do not want to get dragged into the merits or otherwise of Rwanda as a nation, as there is a far broader principle in play. If we start to offload our international responsibilities to a third country—any third country—we are effectively surrendering our influence over what happens next. This Government themselves have become the people traffickers, sending human beings offshore against their will as if they were some kind of waste to be processed rather than human beings alike in dignity. There are real concerns about the impact that this flagrant disregard for international co-operation could have on trade policy, the Good Friday agreement and the Windsor framework. The implications of what is happening here today could be far-reaching and long-lasting across many aspects of all our lives.
Let me move to cost. Quite typical of the way that this Tory Government run their business, there has been secrecy over the cost. Yesterday, the permanent secretary was finally forced to reveal the additional £100 million payment to Rwanda, after the figures showed up in some International Monetary Fund paperwork. That is on top of £140 million the previous year and £50 million to come next year, for a scheme that thus far has seen more Home Secretaries than asylum seekers flown to Rwanda. It will cost £169,000 per asylum seeker—significantly more than if they were processed in the UK and allowed to rebuild their lives here and contribute to society, as so many dearly wish to do.
We all know that the capacity of the deal makes it practically impossible. The estimated capacity of around 200 would mean that the probability of being renditioned to Rwanda is one in 230. If the UK Government were to remove everyone who crossed in a small boat last year, it would cost £7.7 billion. That would be an obscene use of public funds at any time, but particularly so in a cost of living crisis. Then there is the ongoing problem, which the Government are failing to address, of those people who have arrived and will not be removed. They are forever stuck in immigration limbo, with their cases deemed inadmissible. At what cost? Where will they stay? What will they do for the rest of their lives?
A further danger of the Bill is that it will force people into even riskier behaviour. The Refugee Council has stated that almost everyone who arrives in the UK does so after being intercepted by the UK coastguard, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution or Border Force, and many actively contact those agencies asking to be rescued. The Bill makes it far less likely that they will do so. They will take more dangerous routes and they will not seek assistance, and the inevitable result is that many more will die in the channel or in the back of refrigerated lorries. The Bill will also leave people at the mercy of exploitative people traffickers. The Home Affairs Committee has already found that
“the fight against human trafficking is, in practice, no longer a priority for the UK Government”.
The Bill, and the Illegal Migration Act 2023 that came before it, make that worse.
The treaty also states that there is nothing to stop people leaving Rwanda once they are removed there, regardless of anything Ministers may claim. The BBC, on its visit to the Gashora refugee camp in Rwanda, found that those who had been moved there under other schemes did not wish to stay:
“Of the almost 2,000 people who have been relocated to the transit camp in Gashora since it was set up in 2019, none opted to stay in Rwanda when given the option, preferring instead to move to another country.”
So what do we have? We have endless failed policies. We have the ramping up of tensions through rhetoric. We have ineffective legislation. We have the overruling of judges. We have the abolition altogether of the asylum system. We have the undermining of human rights. It is like the TV series “Years and Years” on steroids.
It does not have to be this way. Together with Refugees published this week a clear alternative to fixing the broken system and keeping people safe. Ministers could not be less interested. The response from the right wing? To pillory Gary Lineker for having the temerity to speak his mind. The Scottish Government recently published a paper setting out an alternative in Scotland to this ineffective and failing system, ending the hostile environment and ensuring that humane, fair and compassionate refugee and asylum policies are a priority.
We should never forget the traumas and unimaginable suffering that lead people to flee their homes. They are people, just like us. Were it happening to us, we would all hope to be treated far better than those on the Government Benches would have it, and to find safety and sanctuary when we needed it most. It was on that principle that the refugee convention was created. We should stand up for that principle today and reject this cruel, unworkable and illegal Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Just to clarify, since the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) referred to it, the reasoned amendment that has been selected is the one in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
If I am to have any chance of getting everybody in, I will need to introduce a time limit, which I will do now. It will be eight minutes for the moment, but I am sure it will go down. I have been able to notify the next speaker of that limit.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The recent Rwanda case is the most recent case on matters relating to parliamentary intentions, the supremacy of law and the rule of law, and the proper application of the rule of law. One claimant—and it requires only one claimant—had his claim dismissed by the Supreme Court on the grounds that parliamentary sovereignty had already undermined his case. The case was about retained EU law, but it actually undermined the case of that claimant. That was a clear indication that the Court was going to take the sovereignty of Parliament first, and that is the key issue in this debate.
It has been said by the courts that sovereignty trumps international law. It is absolutely clear that that is the case. Only this year, the House of Lords Constitution Committee, in paragraph 58 of its report on the rule of law, stated:
“Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can legislate contrary to the UK’s obligations under international law.”
That was a reinforcement of the judgments I mentioned in an intervention, including those of Lord Hoffmann, Lord Bingham and Lord Denning. Our greatest jurists have all come to exactly the same conclusion. The President of the current Supreme Court, which dealt with the Rwanda case, said the same thing in paragraph 144 of its judgment in that case:
“the principle of legality does not permit a court to disregard an unambiguous expression of Parliament’s intention such as that with which we are concerned”.
So, the position is completely clear and those cases—
Sir William Cash
Before the hon. and learned Lady seeks to intervene, I want to get this quite clear. The Miller case was on a different set of circumstances. Not only that, but it has been overtaken by subsequent constitutional judgments by the Supreme Court itself. I want to quote now from Lord—
Sir William Cash
I will give way. The hon. and learned Lady can say what she likes.
Joanna Cherry
It is refreshing to know that my article 10 rights have not been withdrawn yet. The point is this. The hon. Gentleman may be right, as a matter of domestic law of England that the sovereignty of the English Parliament allows England to change its domestic law internally. [Interruption.] He may be right; it is in dispute as we know. What he is definitely not right about is that this Parliament cannot domestically legislate to take us out of our international legal obligations without doing so clearly. The Supreme Court has been crystal clear about that. There are two separate matters here: domestic law and international law. If the Government want to breach their international legal obligations, am I not right, based on Supreme Court authority, that they will actually have to withdraw from the treaties to which they are committed?
Sir William Cash
Absolutely. I am glad that the hon. and learned Lady mentioned the fact that an unambiguous statement—an explicit statement, as Lord Sumption puts it—on the position in interpreting the intentions of Parliament carries enormous weight and, in fact, overrides international law obligations.
Sir William Cash
No, I will not give way.
I am going to quote directly from Lord Hoffman himself in relation to an ECHR case. [Interruption.] This is the case of R. v. Lyons 2003. He states:
“the Convention is an international treaty and the ECtHR is an international court with jurisdiction under international law to interpret and apply it. But the question…is a matter of English law. And it is firmly established that international treaties do not form part of English law and that English courts have no jurisdiction to interpret or apply them…Parliament may pass a law which mirrors the terms of the treaty and in that sense incorporates the treaty into English law. But even then the metaphor of incorporation may be misleading. It is not the treaty but the statute which forms part of English law. And English courts will not (unless the statute expressly so provides) be bound to give effect to interpretations of the treaty by an international court, even though the United Kingdom is bound by international law to do so. Of course there is a strong presumption in favour of interpreting English law…in a way which does not place the United Kingdom in breach of an international obligation”—
but, and this is absolutely crucial—
“The sovereign legislator in the United Kingdom is Parliament. If Parliament has plainly laid down the law, it is the duty of the courts to apply it, whether that would involve the Crown in breach of an international treaty or not.”
That is what the law is. That is a straightforward interpretation and statement.
There is an issue that I want to come to. I praise my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) for his courage and for a brilliant speech, and endorse every word he said, but I would also like to say this: we want the Government to succeed in their legislation, but it has to be legislation that works. As I have explained, in relation to the Supreme Court, the whole question turns on the intention of Parliament and the sovereignty of Parliament. It is a question of justiciability as well. I put to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Illegal Migration that, when it comes to it, we can make changes to the Bill. It is possible to extend the scope of the Bill, and I hope he will have discussions with the Clerk of Public Bills, with whom I have had discussions already.
It is absolutely clear that the scope of the Bill will determine the amendments, whether from the Government or Back Benchers. It matters that we are entitled to have a proper debate on this fundamental question about international law and its relationship to sovereignty. The Bill, if enacted after Royal Assent, could be scuppered by one claimant and by the courts if the words of the Act are not clearly expressed and explicit in ruling out any such claim, for example under clause 4 or any other heading, such as rule 39 and all the other things we will no doubt trot out in Committee if we get there. We therefore have to address the question of the scope of the Bill, because that is the way that Parliament functions. That is the way Mr Speaker must decide on the selection of amendments, so it is crucial.
There is much more that I could say, but I let me end by drawing attention to the global issue. The fact is that throughout the European Union there is a real problem. They are tearing their hair out, because on the one hand they have the charter of fundamental rights, and on the other they are bound by qualified majority voting to comply with the situation, which is actually not the same for us. We have a unique opportunity, in our parliamentary system and with the sovereignty of Parliament, to be able to make amendments and provide domestic law that will satisfy the voters of this country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
May I start by expressing my condolences following the news of the death of an asylum seeker on the Bibby Stockholm barge this morning?
It is now almost one year since the Prime Minister pledged to “stop the boats”. No one here is arguing against that goal—we all want to see an end to people risking their lives by getting into small boats and crossing the channel—but, as we in the Home Affairs Committee stated clearly in our report last year on channel crossings, there is no silver bullet to end small boat crossings. We said that it would take the adoption of a variety of policies, including safe legal routes and additional cross-border policing to go after criminal gangs. We made many other recommendations; we even suggested the innovative idea of piloting the processing of asylum claims in reception centres in France, a system that would be similar to the juxtaposed border controls arrangement that we already have with France.
In April last year the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), announced the Rwanda scheme, and since then an extraordinary amount of financial and political capital has been poured into this policy. While we accept that progress has been made on some of our recommendations, including clearing the legacy backlog and developing work with France and Belgium, the eyes of the Government have been locked on the Rwanda policy and its implementation. The underlying assumption of the policy is that the prospect of being sent to Rwanda will act as a deterrent for those thinking of crossing the channel.
Let us not forget, however, that the Rwanda policy required a ministerial direction to the Home Office permanent secretary to get the scheme under way. Why? It was because the permanent secretary was not convinced that the scheme constituted value for money. There was—and there remains—no clear evidence that the deterrent effect would work, which cast doubt on the scheme’s value for money. Likewise, the Home Affairs Committee felt that although the policy was good at generating headlines, it lacked a clear evidence base and full costings. The Committee has been attempting to scrutinise the policy ever since, but we have been struck by how difficult it has been to obtain facts and information from the Home Office on the details of the scheme. That has undermined our ability to perform our scrutiny function.
We knew that an additional £120 million had been paid at the start of the agreement, and that there would be an additional payment for each person sent to Rwanda to process their claim and to enable successful claimants to receive up to five years of support from the United Kingdom. We subsequently learnt that a further £20 million had been provided as a down-payment on the initial costs for processing asylum seekers, so we knew that a total of £140 million had been paid. We repeatedly sought information, but were met with claims of commercial confidentiality whenever we asked questions about additional funding.
It was with some surprise, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and I received a letter from the permanent secretary last Thursday evening informing us that an additional £100 million had been paid to the Rwanda Government in April 2023, and that a further £50 million would be sent in 2024. However, on 29 November the Committee was unable to establish from the permanent secretary the cost of sending each person to Rwanda. The impact assessment for the Illegal Migration Act 2023 had estimated £169,000 per person, but Home Office officials could not confirm that in November.
Given that we are being asked to support the Bill today, it is essential that we know the costings, whether the Bill policy represents value for money, and whether it will work. Parliament is being asked to assess whether the Bill will deliver a scheme that constitutes an appropriate use of public money, without the Government’s telling us how much public money is due to be spent. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm exactly how much money has been spent, pledged and budgeted for in respect of each year of the UK- Rwanda memorandum, and now the treaty, and that he will commit himself to giving quarterly financial updates to Parliament.
Let me now deal with the specific provisions in the Bill. As we all know, the aim is to ensure that irregular migrants arriving in the UK are quickly sent to Rwanda, with very few legal opportunities to appeal and with clause 3 expressly disapplying several parts of the Human Rights Act. The Committee noted in our report last year that
“The Government risks undermining its own ambitions and the UK’s international standing if it cannot demonstrate that proposed policies…such as the Rwanda partnership now being legally challenged, are compatible with international law and conventions.”
As we know, clause 2 would require all decision makers to accept Rwanda as a safe country for removals, despite the ruling of the Supreme Court. As a very distinguished former Solicitor General, Sir Edward Garnier KC, has said,
“It’s rather like a bill that has decided that all dogs are cats.”
Indeed, the Bill does not resolve any of the issues raised by the Supreme Court, whose decision was based on evidence that Rwanda had previously violated international human rights treaties. The Bill is not a magic wand that will suddenly make that evidence disappear. I also question the need to legislate that Rwanda is a safe country. If the treaty says that it is safe, should not the Government be confident that the courts will now reach a different view and also conclude that it is safe?
The Bill will prevent the courts from carrying out independent and rigorous scrutiny of any claim that there are substantial grounds for fearing a real risk of refoulement or treatment contrary to article 3 of the European convention on human rights. I understand that that would be incompatible with the UK’s international obligations under the refugee convention and the ECHR. Is the Minister concerned about the Bill’s impact on the UK’s international standing, particularly given the absence of an evidence base for its deterrent approach, and is he concerned about the possibility that by effectively reversing through statute a Supreme Court judgment on the facts, the Bill could undermine the constitutional role of the judiciary?
Let me now turn to some practical questions. According to the treaty, seconded independent experts will be supporting asylum decision making for the first six months, and asylum appeals will be made to a new appeal body. It also refers to free legal advice and representation from legal professional members of the Rwanda Bar Association. All these things will take time to develop and will need investment, so I wonder whether there is an additional cost that the Minister might like to tell us about. I have no doubt that the Rwandan Government have entered into this treaty in good faith, but the question of whether it has been entered into in good faith by both parties is beside the point. What matters is whether Rwandan officials will recognise and comply with their obligations, and whether there are sufficient resources and adequate capacity in the group to enable this to happen. Neither of those can be guaranteed by the treaty or by the Bill, so I hope that the Minister will provide evidence today that capacity building and attitude change have taken place, thus addressing the Supreme Court’s concerns.
The challenge of stopping dangerous boat crossings is real, but so is the challenge of clearing the backlog, ending the use of expensive hotels, and delivering an asylum system that works. All that warrants serious, evidence-based solutions, with full costings.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
In defending the Bill, which I will attempt, one has to reckon with those who think that it goes too far, or may go too far, and with those who think it goes not far enough. Let me first address those who think that it goes too far, of whom the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) is an example.
The Bill is criticised on the basis that it deems Rwanda to be safe. It is said that that is an illegitimate legal technique. It is said that it perpetuates, or perpetrates, a fiction in law. That is precisely the same fiction that the Labour Government adopted in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
Yes, it is. It was changed two or three years later, but in the Nasseri case before the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, their lordships upheld, as a matter of law, the deeming of countries to be safe and within the law. Indeed, they went on to say—Lord Hoffmann being one of them, I think—that while Parliament deemed it such, there were plainly risks if the Home Office did not keep an eye on the state and conditions in the countries that were thus deemed, but otherwise it complied with the law and the courts would respect Parliament’s decision.
What is being said in this case is that a Supreme Court decision has already held Rwanda not to be a safe country for the purposes of the guarantee against refoulement. It is said that for this House to overrule the decision of the Supreme Court in such an individual case is constitutionally undesirable and contrary to fundamental constitutional principle. I do not agree with that analysis. First, it is open to this Parliament at any point to take steps to reverse the effect of a judicial ruling—that is the consequence of parliamentary supremacy. It is clear that Parliament should be restrained in doing so in cases, for example, where individual rights in a case to reverse a determination made in favour of an individual would plainly be contrary to fundamental constitutional principle, but that is not what we are doing here. We are seeking to do precisely what the Labour Government did in 2004. We are saying that Parliament, legitimately weighing the evidence, has concluded that Rwanda will not engage in the refoulement of those sent to it. That is something the courts have already accepted. It is something that it is open to this House to do, and it is something that, in my judgment, it is perfectly legitimate for Parliament to undertake. It would be different if it were to reverse a decision against an individual.
But even if I am wrong about that, and even if as a matter of constitutional convention it were undesirable for this House to reverse the effect on a question of principle—namely, whether Rwanda is safe for the purposes of refoulement—the facts have changed. There is now a binding treaty, and it is binding not only in international law but in domestic Rwandan law. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has rightly analysed the situation of international law. In this country we have a dualist jurisdiction where treaties are not self-executing, but in Rwanda the treaty is self-executing, so it will be binding on the Rwandan Government not only as a matter of international law, but as a matter of their own law.
That treaty contains a range of important safeguards, including, as a longstop, the fact that no individual removed to Rwanda from this country can be removed to a third country without the consent of the United Kingdom. If that longstop is in place, if the treaty is binding in Rwandan law and if it is binding, as it is, in international law, then I would suggest that there is simply no credible risk of refoulement if treaties and legal rules mean anything in the United Kingdom and in Rwanda. If the risk of refoulement has been removed, then there is nothing inappropriate in this House determining, as the Labour Government did in 2004, that Rwanda is safe for the purposes of refoulement. So I say to the House that this is appropriate, and it is a judgment that we can make as a House to take the step that we are now taking.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
I cannot give way; I do not have time.
Let me move to the third and most important question, which relates to the exclusion of access to courts. This Bill carefully preserves the right of individuals to come to court in extreme cases of individual justice. I listened, impressed, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and I submit to those who think the Bill goes far enough that we cannot sacrifice the principle of access to a court. If we eliminated it entirely, not only would the Bill collapse because it would be interminably impeded in the House of Lords, but it would probably lead to the Rwandan Government withdrawing; and it is conceivable that the courts could entertain, for the first time, a complex challenge about the right of this Parliament to do away with fundamental constitutional principles such as access to a court. The supremacy of this House does not necessarily mean that it does not operate within a complex system of constitutional institutions, each of which has its own place as a component part in that system.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
No, I cannot give way; I simply do not have time.
Constitutional principles compete in creative tension. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important of them, but there are others that are fundamental and one of them is access to a court in extreme cases. That is what this Bill preserves. I say to my right hon. Friends that I understand their frustration and their deep, intense dissatisfaction with the current situation; I share it. I think that there is tightening that we could do, particularly on rule 39. But on the preservation of the right to go to court in an extreme case, I say that is part of the British constitution that our fathers and our party have supported, and for which they have fought, for generations, and it would be wrong of us to compromise on that—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but he is fully aware that we have to stick to the time limit. After Sir George Howarth, whom I shall call next, I am afraid that, given the number of hon. Members who wish to participate, I shall have to reduce the time limit to six minutes.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Government’s failure to arrive at a workable solution to the problem of asylum seekers relates not only to how they have tried to deal with refugees, but to their failure to create the capacity in our country to maintain reliable services, and to such an extent that many British people find themselves unable to access the basic needs and services to which they are entitled. This is also about the Government’s stewardship of the economy. Additionally, it is rooted in their careless conduct of our relationships with other countries, particularly in Europe.
Therefore, in dealing with this sensitive issue, it is crucially important that we are clear about the principles upon which any approach should be based. The problem, however, is that the Government too often confuse slogans with policy, and in so doing they fail to take account of the principles upon which a realistic policy should be based. Their cynical obsession with creating dividing lines is a barrier to building the sort of consensus to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) referred.
For the purpose of clarity, let me say at the outset that our country’s capacity to admit migrants is finite. It therefore follows that we need a much more structured method of determining how many people can be accommodated; one that takes into account the capacity of our public services and our economy. I will later say a few words about the space that exists in our economy to fill the gaps in various industries and sectors. One of the principles would be to match would-be immigrants with sectors in which there are insufficient people to plug those gaps. Many of those people have those skills.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would make eminent sense to ensure that people who claim asylum in the United Kingdom have the right to work while they await a decision, not least because it would allow them to be better integrated into our community when they get their decision? Allowing people to support themselves while they are here would also reduce the cost to the taxpayer.
Sir George Howarth
I will address that point later in my speech, if I have enough time.
In England, the NHS waiting list for hospital treatment rose to a record of nearly 7.8 million in September, up from approximately 2.3 million. Ambulance response times have also risen, going up to one hour and 30 minutes in December 2022, against a target of 18 minutes.
The UK is experiencing an acute housing crisis, with house building consistently failing to keep pace with demand. The National Housing Federation says that 8.5 million people in England are in housing need, with 4.2 million of them in need of a social rented home. In England, in 2022, people had to spend more than eight times their annual salary to purchase a home. In 2020-21, 17% of primary schools and 23% of secondary schools were over capacity. We did not get to this position by accident; it is the result of 13 years of careless neglect and the obsessive pursuit of shrinking the state.
I will now turn to the capacity of our economy and the ongoing skills shortages. GDP is at zero growth, and low GDP growth is forecast to continue into 2024 and possibly beyond. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s latest economic and fiscal outlook stated that, in 2024-25, living standards are forecast to be 3.5% lower than pre-pandemic levels, which is the largest reduction in real living standards since records began in the 1950s.
The skills shortages not only affect our overall economic performance; they are also having a negative effect on our provision of public services such as health and housing, as well as affecting the important food supply, care and hospitality sectors. Many refugees already have those skills and, with a constructive approach from the Government, would be able to plug the gaps in those sectors and, consequently, help to grow the economy.
Our poor relationship with Europe and the wider world makes it more difficult for us to co-operate with other countries, whether bilaterally or through collective international efforts, to deal with the deeply damaging consequences of war and conflict, part of which is the growing displacement of people from their homelands, which results in mass migration. Bluntly, we are not trusted to be a reliable and constructive partner, and our international influence has diminished to the extent that other countries simply do not take us seriously.
As I said at the outset, the Government have tried to turn a slogan, “Stop the boats,” into a policy. Consequently, they have failed to offer a solution to the problem. Many Conservative Members know this to be the case, but they have splintered into factions, either wanting to go further, regardless of our international obligations, or are aware that another, more effective approach is needed. Sadly, this Bill and their conduct illustrate that the Conservative party is not a competent or coherent party that is fit to govern; rather, it is one riven by warring factions. Frankly, it is now time for the Conservatives to make way for national leadership from a party that will calmly and competently deal with our mounting problems.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
After a good deal of hesitation, I shall support the Bill tonight. My hesitation is real because, for me, the Bill goes as close to the wind constitutionally as one can go. I listened with great care to the eloquent speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox). I agree entirely with his very careful analysis of the Bill.
The Bill takes a novel and unusual approach. We are dealing with an unusual and pressing situation, and therefore straining the sinews of what is acceptable can just be justified. Equally, the idea that legislation is the sole or even the principal solution to this situation is, I think, wrong. Ultimately, an operational solution is required. It is surprising that some previous occupants of the Home Office did not think about that rather more, although others did and it is a pity that their ideas were not acted upon. Ultimately, it will be operational measures that make the real difference. If this Bill can make a difference, and provided that the safeguards that my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned remain, I can, with hesitation, live with it.
I am indebted to the analysis provided by the Society of Conservative Lawyers, and I declare my interest as chair of its executive committee. The paper was written by Lord Sandhurst KC and Harry Gillow, who are both experienced in international law. If we want opinions on such things, it is best to go to people with experience in the field of international law, rather than in other fields. They conclude, as I do, that although there are areas that need to be examined with care, the Bill falls on the right side of the line. Deeming provisions are not unprecedented, as has been set out.
I share the concern set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) about how deeming provisions interact with international law obligations, and I hope the Minister will take that on board and explore it. We can deem in domestic law, but we cannot legislate to oust our international law obligations.
The useful analysis of the Society of Conservative Lawyers pamphlet states that in reality, if the UK were to breach international law conventions, not only would that be constitutionally wrong; it would collapse the scheme, because Rwanda has made it clear that it would not be party to such a scheme. I do not buy for one second the rather patronising attitude that says the Rwandans have been put up to saying that. I think they are utterly genuine in their belief.
It is important to remember that other countries that are subject to the European convention on human rights are reported to be exploring potential arrangements with Rwanda. If Rwanda were to be party to a scheme in which the United Kingdom is breaking international law, Rwanda would inevitably forfeit any opportunity to engage with other ECHR countries, so it would certainly withdraw. People have to be careful what they wish for. If they go too far, they will drive the Rwandans out of the scheme and the whole policy would collapse.
It is critical that individual rights of challenge are preserved, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon said. I am a Conservative because I am a constitutionalist, and I am a constitutionalist because I believe in checks and balances. Frankly, the day the Conservative party thinks that the ends justify the means and ignores the principle of comity, and the day it thinks that any single policy objective overrides the importance of our constitutional checks and balances, is the day it ceases to be the Conservative party as most people would recognise it. Maintaining that balance is essential, and Ministers have, with great endeavour, just managed to do that, but that does not mean that I do not dislike much of the Bill’s wording.
I say that looking at parts of clause 1, in particular subsection (4), which states:
“It is recognised that…the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign, and…the validity of an Act is unaffected by international law.”
That is a GCSE law statement of the blindingly obvious, if I might respectfully say so; it might best be described as “otiose and nugatory” as it adds nothing to the Bill. It is performative—[Interruption.] Well, it can be whichever way round one likes. Pointless might be another way of putting it. I wonder what it adds.
Clause 5(2) is another such passage. It relates to the approach to interim measures under the Strasbourg Court’s rule 35 and states that this is for Ministers “to decide”. Again, that states exactly what the position in law is in any case. We have only to look at the textbook to say, as I did in my intervention, that it is for the Government to decide on rule 35 issues, because they are directed to the Government, not to the courts. It is a bit patronising to tell the courts what is well within their competence to know and decide upon.
With those reservations, I will support the Bill tonight, but I just say that if it were to change and any of the safeguards that have been left in were to be removed, my support would go. Some people would then have pushed the Bill over the line into the unacceptable and, in my judgment, the un-Conservative, and I would not support it. I do not believe that that is the Government’s intention and so I will help them to get the Bill through tonight, but they must be wary of some who do not have the best of objectives for the Government’s policy and might take it in the wrong direction—let’s not get there.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who made one of the best speeches so far today against the Bill. Unfortunately, he does not follow through on his logic, but I am sure that by the end of this process he will do, because he knows perfectly well that the Bill is not really acceptable. I am sure that in his heart of hearts he would like to vote against it tonight.
There are five reasons to vote against the Bill. The first is that it will not work; the idea that someone who is not deterred by a dangerous journey in a dinghy across the most crowded sea lane in the world will be deterred by this flimsy piece of nonsense is just laughable. Secondly, the Bill will lead to protracted and expensive chaos, because, as the hon. Gentleman says, it sails so close to the wind legally that it will inevitably lead to legal challenges. Ironically, since the ouster clauses mean that challenges cannot be adjudicated in the British courts, they will go to the European Court of Human Rights. So the Government are actually replacing a UK court with a European court here, and simultaneously declaring in the Bill that they are not satisfied that the Bill will withstand a legal challenge based on compatibility with the European convention on human rights. That is a recipe for chaos and for expense.
Thirdly, the Bill seeks to reverse by statute law a finding of fact by the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, and it therefore creates a legal fiction. Its title, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, gives the game away. According to the Bill, “Rwanda is safe, even if it isn’t safe, simply because the Government, through the Bill, say it’s safe.” Declaring that somewhere is safe does not make it, of itself, safe. We can no more change reality by law or legal diktat than we can by mere imagination. As Bolingbroke says in Richard II, we cannot
“cloy the hungry edge of appetite
By bare imagination of a feast”.
We cannot make Rwanda safe just by saying it, so the declaration in clause 2 that
“Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country”
is utterly fatuous. If Rwanda is, either now or in the future, in fact safe, the provision deeming it safe is, or will at that point be, otiose or redundant. But if Rwanda is not now or in the future safe, that provision is self-evidently wrong in fact and therefore wrong in principle. So clause 2 is either unnecessary or wrong—or both, simultaneously.
Fourthly, the Bill establishes in UK law a completely new doctrine of the separation of powers, as the ouster clauses, which prevent judges and tribunals from supervising the conduct of Ministers in operating the policy they have laid out in statute, put Ministers above the law. It is not the sovereignty of Parliament that the Bill asserts, but the sovereignty of Ministers. Fundamental to the rule of law is the idea that the Crown—or its modern proxy, the Executive—cannot act arbitrarily, even if it uses its majority in Parliament to declare that it can. That would be the worst form of Henry VIII Act, equivalent to his Proclamation by the Crown Act 1539, which deemed that all the King’s proclamations, even though they were not approved by Parliament, shall be observed
“as though they were made by Act of Parliament.”
Fifthly, now is not the time to undermine human rights and the rules-based order. The UK relies on foreign courts and tribunals being effective. We watch events in Ukraine and declare that the butchery in Bucha or in Mariupol is a war crime. Who do we want to adjudicate that? We want an international court to do so. We rightly lecture China about human rights abuses in Xinjiang province and about abiding by the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. We invoke Magnitsky sanctions against human rights abusers around the world. How can we expect others to abide by the rule of law, and their human rights and other treaty obligations, if we abandon those things?
The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox) was right about one thing—incidentally, he was wrong about 2004, because what we did not do at that time was put in an ouster clause meaning that Ministers were free to do what they wanted. Those who think the Bill should go further will get no help from anyone on this side of the House, in any of the parties, in Committee or on Report. As we have heard, if the demands of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) were to be met in amendments in Committee or on Report, Rwanda would withdraw, and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would withdraw his support for the Bill.
I do not know why anyone would vote for this Bill, but voting for it, despite knowing that it is legally offensive or believing it is fatally flawed, in the desperate hope that the Government will help you amend it, is just delaying the inevitable. I say that because the most extraordinary irony of all is that the Prime Minister has had to rely on the Rwandan Government to tell him and his MPs that Rwanda will not accept any law that breaches international law. Rwanda is theoretically and nominally democratic, but it is, in effect and in actuality, an authoritarian one-party state. That is who is keeping us on the straight and narrow legally. Just think about that before you vote for this nonsense.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), and I was pleased to hear his strong invocation of the fallacy that we live in a separation of powers constitution. We do not; we live in a constitution of checks and balances. We are proud to have an independent judiciary and an independent legal profession underpinning the rule of law, which we are all equal under and subject to. We also have a Parliament that is supreme—the “Crown in Parliament” is the phrase. That is why, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), I take issue with some of the wording in clause 1, but that is by the bye.
The principle of comity is one that we can ill afford to overlook. What do I mean by that? I am talking about the mutual respect that has to exist between the different arms of the constitution. This place is sovereign—we derive our sovereignty from the people—but we also have a responsibility to use that in the responsible way. This is not a new challenge; previous generations have faced similar dilemmas.
I am not going to stand here and minimise the emergency that we face from illegal migration or the challenge that the entire west faces from the mass migration of people who might seek a better life and who are either fleeing war-torn countries or coming for economic reasons. This is an unprecedented challenge for all western democracies. However, such challenges have been faced in the past. When we were at war, we had to make very difficult decisions in this Parliament to make sure that we struck the right constitutional balance in defending these islands against dictatorship, but not in a way that defended us and protected us out of our very freedoms. Our very liberty itself is at stake, and the way in which we legislate has to be responsible and in line with that respect for our fundamental freedoms.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox) said, there is a fundamental truth here that we cannot avoid: if this Bill is amended to create an utter and complete ouster from any individual-based challenge, that goes beyond the parameters of reasonableness and into the sort of legislation that inevitably sets up a fistfight, not with international courts, but with our very own courts.
Sir William Cash
My right hon. and learned Friend is more than aware of the Privacy International case. He knows, as well as I do, that there was a dissenting judgment in that case by both Jonathan Sumption and Lord Reed, which sums up the situation. It is very finely balanced on the facts of that particular case.
Sir Robert Buckland
Contrary to mythology within the Conservative party, my hon. Friend and I agree on many of these key issues. He and I would have legislated over the Evans decision about the Prince of Wales’s letters, because we felt that their lordships went too far. That is an example of this House and this Parliament potentially legislating to correct a legal decision by the courts. Of course we are entitled to do that and we should do it where the will of Parliament dictates.
However, there is a difference between a scenario like that and the one that we face at the moment. Without more evidence and work by the Government, to blithely create a deeming provision in the face of a very strong Supreme Court decision against the Government would have been to invite disaster. That is why not only the treaty that has been signed between Rwanda and Britain is crucial, but also the policy statement that has been published by the Home Secretary today and laid in the House, which I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to read. There is no doubt that the facts are evolving and changing. We should remind ourselves that when the Supreme Court made its decision it looked at the law and the facts as of the summer of last year—some 18 months ago—and we have moved on considerably.
The new provisions are not constitutionally unprecedented. They are unusual, which is why the Government must be restrained. Without clause 4 in the Bill, I am afraid that the Government will set up a massive glass jaw to be smashed by a court in the future, and to invite the sort of constitutional conflict that any good Conservative would not want to see. We do not want our courts being drawn into politics. I have spent my career in this place and my political life arguing against the politicisation of the judiciary, and I have been the first to bring forward legislation to oust the court’s jurisdiction. We did so in the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, on the Cart judicial review—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) finished the job on that.
I am more than happy to be robust about the position of this place and the importance of not having undue and capricious interference with the will of Parliament. I am the first person to assert the authority of this place, but I will not be party to legislation that, in effect, invites the courts to “Come on up, if you’re hard enough”. That is not the approach that we, as responsible Conservatives, should take. To echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, if this Bill is to be amended in any way that crosses that line, I cannot and will not support that.
If anything, the Government should be thinking carefully about ensuring that the Bill is engineered to provide as perfect a balance as possible between their obvious right, as a Government, to get their policy object through, to reflect the huge concerns of our constituents, but, at the same time, to work within the parameters of our unwritten constitution. Today we have a Conservative Government, but what if a Government of another colour was doing something that we, as Conservatives, found mortally offensive? What would we have to rely upon in the defence of the balance of this constitution? What would be left for us to defend against an over-mighty socialist Government? Not a lot. Yes, it is about principle, but at the end we must not lose sight of the fact that as Conservatives it is our constitutional duty to maintain that balance. Remember comity, Mr Deputy Speaker, and we will not go wrong.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I say sincerely that it is a genuine pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland). He gave a characteristically thoughtful speech for Second Reading and, more interestingly, laid down several markers for future stages, should we get to that point. This is a most interesting and unusual Second Reading debate; we are seeing played out in front of us a tripartite discussion between one side of the Government, another side of the Government and the Treasury Bench. It is a remarkable spectacle to observe, albeit not a particularly seemly one.
I was struck by the reliance that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) placed on the references made by the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox) to proceedings in relation to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc. ) Act 2004. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman observed, that was where the concept of safe countries was introduced. The list of safe countries included all the EU countries except Croatia, plus Norway, Iceland and later Switzerland. It was another piece of legislation that restricted the access of rights to appeal for those whose asylum claims had been unsuccessful. There are perhaps lessons to be learned for us all in how that line of legislation has developed ever since.
The enduring lesson I take is not that that Act was introduced by a Labour Government—a Government that had David Blunkett as Home Secretary—but that the Bill was opposed, with some controversy at the time, by the then Conservative Opposition. They described it as “clumsy and draconian”. They were absolutely right about that and, many years later, we can see exactly where that sort of legislation has taken us. What is it about the Conservative party of 2023 that now finds that sort of legislation so attractive?
Let us not forget that we are dealing with the consequence of the refusal of this Government to prosecute the case for safe and legal routes. Why do we not find people from Ukraine or Hong Kong trying to cross the channel in small boats? It is because we offer them safe and legal routes. The Rwanda scheme is unworkable—we know that because it has never been made to work—and the barriers are well rehearsed, but every time they are thwarted, the response of this Government is to throw a foot-stamping tantrum. Anyone who ever had any doubt about the depth and scale of Tory self-entitlement can see it laid bare here today. The Bill is not about making the system work or providing an effective deterrent; it is simply about trying to bring together a disparate range of forces within their own party.
How many will Rwanda take over the five years of the agreement? The only reliable information about that comes from the Rwandans themselves: it will be a few hundred. What sort of deterrent effect will that have? Everything that we know about the Bill and the cost of the scheme comes not from the Home Office, but from the Rwandan Government. It is because of the information that they put into the public domain that we learned about the extra £100 million that the Government have submitted; they were never going to tell us.
The problems facing this policy are manifest and they are not going to be wished away. We should not forget, however, that even with those issues wiped away at a stroke, the Bill and the scheme would still represent a moral vacuum where our asylum system should be. It is wrong in the practicalities, but it is also wrong on the principle. It is a liberal value to take personal responsibility and to live up to one’s obligations. Passing on our asylum responsibilities to another country is the opposite of that value. It is a step back from the world and a move towards isolationism. It suggests that we have no responsibilities to the wider world.
Much like this Bill’s rewriting of reality to impose a judgment of safety to Rwanda, these plans would reverse decades of the UK’s leading the way on the international rule of law and rules-based order, of which we should be so proud. Many across the House, having boasted about global Britain, must now ask themselves whether they really want to turn us into fortress Britain. The Bill suggests a grim and illiberal mentality that is a far cry from the confidence that our country used to project, and that, Mr Deputy Speaker, is why we should reject it this evening.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Having been the Home Secretary who negotiated the original migration and economic development partnership, I find it quite odd to hear some of the comments in this debate, and particularly those appalling ones that run down the country of Rwanda. The partnership with Rwanda was established as a world-leading and innovative way to tackle the challenges caused by the mass migration and displacement of people. It was carefully designed with our friends in the Rwandan Government to do one thing that no one in this House has mentioned today: to raise the international bar on the treatment of asylum seekers and to do so with compassion and support when it comes to their resettlement. Astonishingly, while Members, particularly those on the Opposition Benches, have been talking down the Government of Rwanda for the past 20 months, the country has in fact already supported and resettled 130,000 refugees through schemes established with the UNHCR and through international conventions.
Priti Patel
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, there is no time for me to give way.
Effectively, such resettlement schemes involving third countries are the type that we need to deal with the awful, abusive and illegal trade in people smuggling. The awful comments that I have heard thus far about Rwanda and this scheme leave a stain on this House. We have a moral imperative to raise the bar and, effectively, to look at how we can be better as a Government at addressing these issues. When I negotiated and agreed the partnership in April 2022, we all knew that it would face criticisms and legal challenges, and the Government of the day were prepared for that. I said it at the time and in fact we gave some clear statements in the House as to the steps that we would take forward.
A year ago, the High Court found the plans to be lawful. The Court of Appeal ruled against the policy, citing concerns over the issue of refoulement, which are well known. Importantly, as the Supreme Court has since emphasised, the principles of the policy as well as the commitment given by the Rwandan Government to make the partnership work, are all fine and sound, but some operational measures need to go further. The Government have since outlined them both in this Bill and through statements they have made in this House, which would help to make the scheme viable.
It is fair to say that we all bear the scars of this debate, and we heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) speak about that. I do not envy those on the Front Bench right now. We have had a constant merry-go-round of legal challenges—whether through our own domestic courts, or through interference from elsewhere, by which I am referring to rule 39. I have experience of dealing with rule 39! There are organisations, campaigners and lawyers who will do everything possible to frustrate the will of this House and the will of the democratically elected Government, because, at the end of the day, that is what we are. We have to rise against these dogmatic beliefs because, quite frankly, there are too many organisations and individuals who are getting in the way and effectively letting more claims go to the courts.
There are measures, including some from the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which have not been implemented, including the one-stop shop. They would save the courts a lot of time and effort by bringing forward the single claims that this House voted through, just last year, which meant that repeat claims would not keep on going back to the courts. I say to those on the Front Bench that it is really important that we press on the Government to go backwards in order to go forwards. We need to bring in these measures that have already been passed through Acts of Parliament—dare I say it, there may be more in legislation that has come in since.
I ask the Minister, in responding to the debate, to tell us how the Government will act and prepare for any future challenges that may come through this legislation. How will they stand up to the unmeritorious claims that keep coming through the courts—for example, those based on modern-day slavery, which we have heard about far too much? We put measures in the Nationality and Borders Act to deal with that.
We have seen the summary of the legal advice that the Government have received and read much of the other expert opinion. I seek assurances from the Minister that he and his colleagues are aware of the risk of challenges. How that is mitigated as the Bill passes through the House, in the conventional way, will be crucial. We cannot have more cases bogged down in the courts. Too many of us have worked through that.
We have a major problem with detention in this country, which includes a lack of detention capability. There were plans in the “New Plan for Immigration” to introduce Greek-style reception centres. I press the Minister and the Home Office to work with the Prime Minister and the Treasury to bring forward those sites; otherwise, we will see more Bibby Stockholms and more Wethersfield sites, which frankly are not the answer. Those Greek-style reception centres will help with the fast-tracking of processing claims and the fast-tracking of the removal of individuals who have no right to be in this country. I also press the Minister and the Home Secretary to adopt an integrated approach, so that we can deal with this national issue. The public voted for change and we want to deliver that change for them.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Speaking as a lawyer—[Interruption.] Yes, there are still one or two of us left. I must say that I felt quite queasy reading the Bill. It is not the kind of thing that I would expect this Parliament to be considering. I detected the same queasiness among some of the lawyers who have spoken from the Government Benches, including the former Justice Secretary and the current Chair of the Justice Committee. Apparently, they too found reading the Bill a queasy experience.
I agreed with the former Tory Law Officer, Lord Garnier, who used to be in this House, when he called this Bill political and legal nonsense. It designates Rwanda as a safe country, but by doing so it seeks to reverse a conclusion of the Supreme Court on the facts. It is perfectly reasonable to legislate if the Supreme Court strikes down a policy, but one normally legislates to change a policy, not to purport to change the facts, or to say that the facts, which have not changed, are other than what the Court found them to be. That is the first thing that made me feel queasy.
The Bill goes on to try to prohibit any legal challenges that may argue that Rwanda, having been deemed safe in this way, is in fact unsafe. It says that every decision maker
“must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country”,
notwithstanding any evidence that may come forward to the contrary. Given that the evidence that has already come forward, which the Supreme Court dealt with in its judgment, led the Court to say unanimously that it was not a safe country, it is worrying that we seem to think we can simply legislate to change the facts.
The Bill allows a very narrow range of claims, and this comes to the heart of the argument between those on the Government Benches who wish to beef it up even further to exclude any kind of legal challenge, and those, perhaps on the one-nation side of the Conservative party, who are trying to put a line in the sand to say that they will not accept any further amendments. The narrow range of claims allowed are those based on
“compelling evidence relating specifically to the person’s particular individual circumstances”,
and even those sorts of claims are excluded in some circumstances relating to refoulement.
Excluding courts, by Act of Parliament, from considering relevant evidence; excluding them from taking account of judgments and laws, including domestic legislation; fettering their judgment as the Bill seeks to do; and giving Ministers power to ignore injunctions—taken together, that is tantamount to undermining the rule of law. It is certainly not respecting the rule of law, as I would expect parliamentarians in this place to do—and certainly as I would expect the Government of the day to seek to do, if they wished to uphold our international reputation.
It beggars belief that the Government’s response to the loss of their policy in the Supreme Court is to ask this House to legislate just to declare, “It’s all fine anyway; let’s carry on.” As others have pointed out, even if we were to start sending asylum seekers to Rwanda as a result of this Bill’s passing into law, the policy is designed for a few hundred people at the most, or less than 1% of people arriving in the UK. The permanent secretary at the Home Office was very clear when he said there was no evidence that it would work as a deterrent, whereas most of what we hear from Conservative Members is that that is the very purpose of the legislation—it is supposed to be a deterrent.
So there we have it: the policy is a Tory shibboleth, which has become an article of faith for some elements of the Tory party—the “five families”, as I think they have called themselves, somewhat menacingly. We see the Tory psychodrama unfolding yet again to decide the fate of the latest unelected Tory Prime Minister to be threatened with defenestration by some of the more right-wing elements of those five families. The country deserves better.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) set out in her excellent speech, time and again the Government go for gimmicks and infighting over basic competence and good administration. It is four years since the Tories promised to end boat crossings in six months. Almost a year after the current Prime Minister promised again to stop the boats, 30,000 more people have arrived. Hotel usage is going up, and not down as the Home Secretary claimed; it is at 56,000 at the moment, 10,000 more than when the Prime Minister promised to end hotel use. Criminal gangs are not being deterred. Convictions for people smugglers have dropped by 36% since 2010 and the criminal gangs are making more money than ever. The backlog of undetermined cases remains at 165,000, despite the PM’s promise to abolish the backlog of initial asylum claims by the end of this year.
It is folly to continue with this farcical failed joke of a policy when what is really needed is competent, good administration. Why not put the money being wasted on this policy into dealing with the actual problem? If the Tory party and the Government tried to do that rather more successfully than they have managed in 13 years, they might get some credit from the Opposition and from the nation, but there is precious little evidence that there is going to be any of that.
Sir Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
We all know that our constituents want action on illegal migration. If we conduct surveys and read our emails, we know that it is one of the most important issues facing our constituents. But it is not new that the political parties are debating and making promises on it. The right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) concluded her speech by bemoaning the lack of action and change in a year and in four years. When she delved seriously back, she went back 14 years. Let us go back a bit further.
In 1997, such was the issue of asylum and migration that it merited a mere two paragraphs in the Conservative party general election manifesto, and the same in the Labour party manifesto. In 2001, with Labour newly in office, the Conservative manifesto stated:
“The problem here is worse than anywhere else in Europe because of Labour’s mismanagement. The Government has presided over massive delays in processing applications and admits that thousands of those whose cases are rejected simply disappear and never leave.”
That was us, in 2001. We said:
“We will ensure that those whose claims are rejected are quickly deported by a new Removals Agency. Conservatives will restore common sense to Britain’s asylum procedures.
By 2005, Labour were promising to establish a points-based system, stating:
“We will ensure that only skilled workers are allowed to settle long-term in the UK, with English language tests for everyone who wants to stay permanently and an end to chain migration.”
In 2010, Labour said:
“People need to know that immigration is controlled, that the rules are firm and fair,”
and sought a mandate for a promised “Australian-style points-based system”. By 2010, we were promising—we might, if we listen carefully, hear the echoes from down the corridor in the other place—that we would
“take steps to take net migration back to the levels of the 1990s—tens of thousands a year, not hundreds of thousands.”
By 2015, Labour were talking about how “broken promises erode trust” and said—there were echoes of this in what the shadow Home Secretary said—that they would recruit 1,000 new border staff and speed up the process.
Both political parties have made promises to the British people at election times, and both have then told the British public that it is the other party’s fault that the problem has not been addressed. When we look back, between 1964 and 1997 the UK’s net migration figures were never lower than minus 87,000 or higher than plus 58,000. Now, it would be regarded as a modest year—a low figure—if net migration were in the several hundreds of thousands. All the while, according to the ONS, more than 8 million people in this country are economically inactive.
I will support the Government today, because I think that they deserve credit for trying to deliver on their promises to the British people on the boats. We in this House should unite for once, to seek to deliver on the successive promises that we have all made to the British people. When we look at countries where those promises have been broken, we see that unsavoury, dangerous people have stepped into the void. I fear that, if we do not once and for all say what we will do and deliver it for the British people, we could see such a fate in this country.
In my Bournemouth West constituency, we have four hotels occupied by people waiting for their asylum application to be determined. I am clear that it is grossly unfair on them to be trapped in that limbo, and yes, we should do everything we can to accelerate the process, but if they have no right to be in this country, it is equally fair on the British people and British taxpayers that those people get that determination and are returned to their country of origin to get on with their lives.
We are seeing far too many people come here without the necessary checks and then do things in this country that are deeply unwelcome. I cite the example of Tom Roberts, a poor young man who was brutally murdered in my constituency. His murderer said when he came here that he was 14, so he was put into a secondary school. It turned out that he was 18 and that he had murdered two other people in the country that he was in before he came here.
We owe it to the British people to be clear and direct. I will support the Government, and I will support the Opposition if they become the Government, to finally keep faith with the British people and with those who come here with the right to be here, in order to fulfil our ancient pledge to offer sanctuary and freedom to those who are persecuted. But we have to be straight with the British people. If we say that we will do something, we have to do it, and we must use every means at our disposal to deliver directly for the British people.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I am glad that the debate has provided an opportunity for former immigration Ministers to come together for some therapy and to share a little experience about the principles at the heart of the Bill. I served as immigration Minister for nearly two and a half years—in fact, I think that I am the longest-serving former immigration Minister still in the House—so I know a little about what it takes to deliver an immigration system, and I have sympathy with some, albeit not many, of the comments that I have heard from the Government Benches this afternoon.
I will say three quick things about deterrence, international agreements and staying true to our values in these debates. I was the Minister who introduced the UK Border Agency. I brought UKvisas from the Foreign Office and customs from the Treasury into the Home Office to create a £2 billion agency with a simple principle at its core: that border security in the 21st century cannot simply be about defending the border at the shores of our country. In this day and age, one has to operate a triple border. We have to export the border as far away from these shores as possible; we need to have a strong border at those shores; and then we need to have strong in-country enforcement. The only way in which we can get that system to work, and to work effectively, is to fund it.
Global migration pressures are growing sharply. As the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Sir Conor Burns) rightly flagged, 184 million people globally now live outside the borders of their birth, and there are 37 million refugees. Those migration pressures have been growing exponentially since the fall of the Berlin wall, and will continue to grow exponentially in the years to come, not least as the ravages of extreme weather drive more and more people in fragile, conflict and violent countries into poverty. People will always go that extra mile to seek a new life abroad. If we are to have strong borders for this country, yes we must have deterrence, but the deterrence is the speed of justice. It is not the prospect of overriding domestic laws and shipping people off to some remote deportation centre. That is why Home Office officials are right to say that the Bill and its objectives provide very little deterrence, because the Bill does not accelerate the process of rendering a decision on a person’s case and, if they have no basis to be in this country, removing them very rapidly.
Under the administration that I ran, we knew that we had to transform the speed of deportation, which is why we moved heaven and earth to ensure that one person who had no right to be here was removed every eight minutes. That was the kind of pace that was needed to send the very clear message that, if a person is found to have no right to be here, they will be removed very quickly. That is the most effective form of deterrence. The House has to confront the reality. Given a choice on how to spend £400 million of taxpayers’ money, do we spend it on building a remote processing centre in a far-away place, which our own officials tell us is will have no deterrent effect whatsoever, or do we invest it in creating a system that takes decisions quickly and removes people quickly if they have no right to be here?
The first thing one learns as an immigration Minister is that we cannot remove people unless we have agreements with other countries to take them. This is not a country that just drops people out of the back of aeroplanes if they have no right to be here: we have to get them new travel documents, and to have other countries that agree to take them. Frankly, the most important countries with which we need those kinds of agreements are our closest neighbours in Europe, so if we are about to destroy—wipe out and consign to history—decades’ worth of human rights agreements with our closest neighbours, how easy do we really think it will be to get return agreements of any type with those European countries? It is going to get harder and harder, because we will be seen not as good partners, but bad partners. That will not help us to get in place the kinds of returns agreements we are going to need if we are to keep our border and immigration system working well in the 21st century.
My final point is about the Human Rights Act. It is a terrible sight to see the party of Churchill depart so quickly from one of Churchill’s proudest legacies. The European convention on human rights and the Council of Europe were not ideas that were dreamed up out of thin air. They were ideas led, promulgated and delivered by Winston Churchill. That vision—his vision—of a great charter to bring peace to a war-divided continent was based on our experience of protection against torture and against unfair imprisonment and protection of life. Those are ideas that we in this country pioneered, from Magna Carta through the Bill of Rights to the European convention on human rights. The idea that the Conservative party will now lead us in departing from that tradition is a very sorry state of affairs. We in this country are the pioneers of human rights—we celebrated that anniversary with the United Nations at the weekend. It is something we should hold dear.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I call David Jones. [Interruption.] David Jones?
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Oh, thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry; I could not hear you with all the excitement.
Unusually, the aim of this Bill is set out in clause 1, which is
“to prevent and deter unlawful migration, and in particular migration by unsafe and illegal routes”.
That is an aim with which I am sure not a single hon. Member could disagree. Illegal migration is possibly one of the greatest scourges of our age. It is evil, it is internationally organised and it is socially and economically damaging to this country. The Rwanda scheme is an inventive and innovative plan. It establishes, or aims to establish, an effective deterrent to illegal migrants—to make them think twice about making that perilous crossing across the channel. Unfortunately, it foundered on the rocks of the Supreme Court last month, when the Court held that Rwanda could not be considered a safe country, because there were substantial grounds to believe that migrants would face the risk of refoulement, or of being transferred to their country of origin or a third country. The treaty that the Government have concluded does provide reassurance in that regard. It addresses the problem identified by the Court by making specific provision that no relocated individual may be removed from Rwanda other than to the United Kingdom.
Given the dualist nature of our constitution, the treaty needs to be complemented by domestic legislation, and this Bill is that legislation. It is critical that the Bill should function as the Government intend, which is to facilitate the removal of illegal migrants to Rwanda without legal impediment. The question is: does it do so effectively? The Bill has been described as
“the toughest piece of…migration legislation ever put forward by a UK Government”,
and there is no doubt that it does toughen the current regime. However, it is debatable whether it is sufficiently watertight to amount to a significant deterrent to the boats by facilitating the flights to Rwanda.
The Bill has been considered by the legal panel of the European Research Group, and I commend its report to hon. Members. It notes that significant amendments to the Bill are required to improve it, but it expresses concern that those amendments may well be outside the scope of the Bill. One of the most significant problems is that the Bill contains no restrictions on legal challenges against removal to Rwanda on any grounds other than that Rwanda is not a safe country, and that clearly reflects the fact that the Bill is a direct response to the judgment of the Supreme Court last month. If the Bill does successfully block challenges based on arguments that Rwanda is not safe—the treaty certainly helps in that regard—it is likely that those advising illegal migrants will focus more on pursuing challenges of another kind.
We should consider clause 4, which specifically provides that legal challenges to removal may be made if arguments are put forward that Rwanda is not a safe country for individual migrants based on compelling evidence relating to their personal circumstances. The opportunities for the abuse of that provision are obvious. Migrants may well be advised by people smugglers or by unscrupulous lawyers, because there are some, that they should oppose removal to Rwanda on spurious grounds such as a non-existent mental health condition, a fear of flying or whatever. Given that as many as 500 illegal migrants, at the height of the summer, arrive on these shores every day—
Mr Jones
I stand corrected by someone who knows about it. In that case, it is not difficult to envisage a situation in which tribunals and courts may be overwhelmed. I believe that this Bill requires amendment, and I am inviting my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to say, when he winds up this evening, that the Government are open to amendments. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has to say about scope, but I want the Minister to engage with colleagues to see if this Bill may be made better.
At the moment, numerous deficiencies have been identified in the report of the so-called star chamber which I believe will render this Bill inoperable and ineffective. The last thing we want to do as a House is expend a lot of time and a lot of agony to put in place a Bill that does not result in the flights to Rwanda and the deterrence that we need to illegal migrants. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will respond positively to the suggestion when he winds up. I know that a lot of colleagues will listen carefully to what he has to say, and I think they will welcome what may well be regarded as a change of tone on the part of the Government.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
This Bill might be called the safety of Rwanda Bill, but it is really the safety of the future of the Tory party Bill. It is basically Schrodinger’s legislation—all things to all Tories. Ministers might say that it does not breach international law in order to make it a dead cat of a Bill for some, but need to say that it will breach international law to make it work for a dead cat of a Tory party, scrambling to find a reason to provide for such a policy.
I will be voting against this legislation, to stand up for Britain’s proud tradition of human rights and to urge this place to learn from the mess created by the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which replicated similar challenges. It is extraordinary that the Government are presenting us with a piece of legislation that says on its first page that the Secretary of State cannot confirm whether it is compliant with the rule of law and our convention obligations that we all signed up to support.
Many Members on the Government Benches have been listening to Oscar Wilde when he said:
“The study of law is sublime, and its practice vulgar.”
Legislation is not vulgar—it is imperative to democracy. They should listen more to Winston Churchill, who said that the idea of a charter of human rights was for it to be
“guarded by freedom and sustained by law”.
This Bill will not sustain those laws, but diminish them.
We should be proud of the fact that we were the first nation to ratify the convention that set up the European Court of Human Rights, at a time when thousands of people were fleeing persecution and in recognition that the world did not always get things right. We remember the children on the Kindertransport who came to this country, but never their parents who we left behind. It is unimaginable in our own world to manage these issues on our own. That is exactly why we signed up to international treaties—to share the burden, to make the refugee system manageable and to deal with the fact that 60% of people on those boats are being granted asylum because they have a well-founded fear of persecution. Shipping a few of them off to Rwanda—just 5%—is at best an expensive distraction and at worst a deception.
The only thing that this piece of legislation will do is make a bad situation worse. Clause 5(3) provides that the Court cannot take an interim measure into account, even if a Minister has not blocked it. The Bill also breaks our commitment to observe rule 39 interim measures. In doing that, we breach our obligations under article 13 of the ECHR, which requires member states to provide effective remedies for the infringement of rights in domestic law. In layman’s terms, Parliament is being asked to commit the UK to a process that breaches our obligations to protect people from torture. No other country has ever tried to challenge rule 39 jurisdictions. They may not have complied with them, but we are leading on a completely new departure. That will do untold damage to our status around the world. It will also damage other treaties that we have signed up to.
The trade and co-operation agreement states explicitly that if we end judicial co-operation, we undermine the agreement. The Good Friday agreement states explicitly that denying access to domestic courts for individuals on the basis of the ECHR contradicts its own commitments. I am sure that our colleagues from Northern Ireland have recognised that we cannot override legislation in this way. That means there will be countless legal challenges. We have already heard about the millions of pounds we have spent on a scheme where not a single refugee has been sent to Rwanda for processing. We have already spent £2 million on legal fees fighting this process, and that is on top of the extra £150 million we have already pledged to spend on it. No wonder a ministerial direction has been required to uphold this policy.
Parliament can pass any law it likes stating that things should happen. We could pass laws saying that there should not be smoking on the streets of Paris, but it does not mean it will happen, and that is the legal fallacy at the heart of this Bill, along with the Home Office permanent secretary saying there is no deterrent effect. I could pass legislation to say I can sing, but if Members came to karaoke with me, they would quickly realise the truth. The cold, hard reality of the law is that the Bill does not change the facts that the Supreme Court identified, and only the people who think it is a deterrent think that they can somehow keep saying to the courts, “No, no, no—Rwanda is safe,” like some kind of Vicky Pollard approach to making legislation.
It is time the British public woke up to what this Government are doing. We cannot amend ourselves out of this challenge without, on the one side, Tweedledum and, on the other, Tweedledee arguing anymore. This is a mess. It ruins our international standing, it is more money being wasted and it is more time in this place being wasted, when we could go after the traffickers and those exploiting vulnerable people fleeing persecution. We should speak up for the values that, post war, we stood for in the world, including supporting people who are at risk of persecution.
This legislation will not stop the boats, it will not stop the rot and it will not stop the Tory party tearing itself apart. Britain deserves better. With this side of the House, it will get it.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
Let me start by saying how much I support the objectives of the Bill. I pay tribute to the Government for the very significant improvements on the status quo that the Bill represents. There are, of course, some practical issues with its operation, which have been well rehearsed on this side of the House.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) said so well earlier, what really matters is whether the Bill will work, and what working looks like is being able to detain and remove sufficient numbers of illegal migrants quickly enough that they decide that the journey across the channel is not worth it. That means ensuring that we have the capacity in the system. I recognise the progress that the Government have made to improve capacity but, as my right hon. Friend says, we have significant concerns about the system getting gummed up with legal claims that are still allowable under the Bill. We are also concerned about the potential continued operation of rule 39 orders from the Strasbourg Court.
The practical problems with the Bill, which are real and need to be addressed in its further stages, derive from a fundamental point of principle. I really do welcome the noises made in the Bill that would gladden the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash)—it is rather like playing Bill Cash bingo: there is “notwithstanding” this, “supremacy” that, and “sovereignty” the other, which is all extremely welcome. Nevertheless, these words do not apply in the crucial places. The Bill still rests the right of individual claims on international law, the case law of the European Court and the operations of the ECHR in our own country.
Let me say quickly that I am not, at this stage, arguing that we should depart from the ECHR, although I think we could do that. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) spoke as if our leaving the ECHR would mean departing from the honourable and ancient British tradition of liberty, but as he implied in his speech, we would be returning to it if we were to leave the ECHR and rest our liberties on the statutes of Parliament and the common law of our courts. Nevertheless, if the European Court were to disagree with the actions of the Government and issue a substantive ruling to that effect, we would begin a conversation with it about that and decide how exactly we might comply or, if we had to, depart.
Let me turn to the Supreme Court judgment from last month, because it is very important that we try to analyse the implications of that ruling. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said, that the Supreme Court ruling explicitly acknowledges that UK law is supreme over international law. In one of the cases it considered, it made that point in principle, but, except in that one case, it does not make it in practice. The Court ruled against the Government on grounds that derive from European and international law, as well as other domestic laws.
The Court suggested that, in practice, international law trumps domestic law. Having done that, it then inserted itself into foreign policy—it presumed its right to judge a foreign Government. It said it would decide for itself whether the Rwandan Government’s undertakings could be relied upon. The Court essentially gave itself special investigatory powers to make judgments about another country. It described, rather patronisingly, the inadequacy of the Rwandan system—as if that is any business of a British court. While it totally disregarded the UK Government—it said
“the executive enjoys no constitutional prerogative”
in that regard—it gave what it called “particular importance” to the opinion of a United Nations agency. So it inserts itself into foreign policy and draws down the authority of international law and global agencies, but where in its understanding is the role of the UK Government? Where is its understanding of the role of this place, Parliament, which sets our laws?
I want on reflect briefly on what “the rule of law” means, because the phrase is invoked constantly by critics of the Bill and of our Rwanda policy as if international law trumps domestic law. It is not the case that the rule of law implies some hierarchy of law ascending from parish council and local byelaws up to the global law. The rule of law means the supremacy of Parliament and the operation of the common law—case law made by our courts. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone cited all the distinguished jurists: Hoffmann, Bingham and Denning. He did not mention Hale, but he did mention Reed, the President of the Supreme Court. International law is of course important, and I totally recognise its enormous value in keeping the peace in the world and enabling us to deal with other countries, but it applies to the international plane.
Let me touch briefly on human rights law, which has been mentioned. There is an assumption that the Human Rights Act has some kind of superior status in our law. That is often seen to be the case, but that is problematic. The rights and liberties of individuals—citizens and foreign nationals, whether here legally or illegally—are properly protected by statute and case law.
I regret that we have an unsatisfactory Bill before us. I cannot undertake to support it tonight. I hope that the Government will agree to pull the Bill and allow us to work with them and colleagues across the House to produce a better Bill; one that respects parliamentary sovereignty and satisfies the legitimate concerns of colleagues about vulnerable individuals. For instance, we can do better on safe and legal routes. We should be working together with other countries to design a system that respects the sovereignty of Parliament and the legitimate rule of independent nations.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
This year is the 75th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights. What an irony, and what a shameful indictment of Ministers, that our Government are marking it by putting in front of Parliament a Bill to wave aside our human rights obligations and the judgment of the highest domestic court in the land.
This insulting and dangerous legislation attacks both human rights and our democratic structures. In doing so, it both demeans and disrespects the role that the UK has played in helping to shape the international rules-based order, including its contribution to the drafting and early ratification of the European convention on human rights in the aftermath of the horrors of world war two. It is stated on this shameful Bill’s very cover that the Government cannot say that it complies with the UK’s obligations under the ECHR—a terrible admission of this Government’s willingness to violate the principle that human rights are universal and belong to all of us by virtue of our humanity.
As others have noted, the Bill overturns an authoritative, unanimous Supreme Court judgment based on extensive evidence and made just three weeks ago. Our highest domestic court ruled that by sending refugees to Rwanda, the UK could breach its obligations under the ECHR and other international laws such as the refugee convention, the UN convention against torture and the UN international covenant on civil and political rights, as well as domestic law.
In seeking to oust the jurisdiction of our domestic courts by forbidding them from making assessments of fact and disapplying the Human Rights Act, the Bill is constitutionally exceptional and provocative. It explicitly disapplies multiple sections of that landmark Act, including basic minimum standards that protect us all, leaving barely any room for judicial scrutiny. Courts would be barred from considering whether removing an individual to Rwanda could result in removal to a country where they would face torture or inhuman and degrading treatment. What kind of Government would want the courts to ignore that and undermine the separation of powers that is fundamental to UK democracy?
This ugly Bill also attacks interim measures: a vital human rights tool under international law issued on an exceptional basis in extreme circumstances where individuals face a real risk of serious and irreversible harm. It both enables UK Ministers to decide unilaterally whether the UK should comply with interim measures and prohibits UK courts from having regard to them when considering any case relating to a removal decision to Rwanda.
To try to justify this cynical and sinister attack on the highest court in the UK, the Prime Minister has started to say that “Parliament is sovereign.” Obviously, Parliament can pass whatever laws it wants, but we have courts so that everyone, including this Government, acts with respect for the laws that Parliament has passed.
As others have said, this Bill simply will not work. Its so-called deterrent is not a deterrent to someone fleeing torture or persecution, who has already put their life at risk by taking to one of the busiest shipping lanes in dangerous, inflatable boats. The Bill has nothing to do with that, in any case; it is a performative piece of cruelty by a dying Administration and a grotesque waste of money that is neither practical nor strategic.
Most important of all, the outsourcing of our human rights obligations to a third country is downright immoral. To immorality we can add absurdity. Seeking to legislate by assertion that Rwanda is safe is as ridiculous as it is dangerous. The Government cannot sign a quick treaty one week and legislate the next to make a country safe, when the highest court in the land has said just the opposite. The facts on the ground are what matter. It feels bizarre to have to say it, but apparently necessary: legislation to say that Parliament believes something to be true does not make it so. Fixing the facts on which the law is to be applied is the kind of thinking that dangerous conspiracies are based on.
As Tom Hickman KC said in a paper for Institute for Government:
“If the Government considers that the treaty has eliminated the real risk of refoulement then it should seek to persuade the courts of that, not parliament.”
It should not need saying that when the UK Government sign a treaty, they should stick to it. They now have the embarrassment of being schooled by the Rwandan Government, who, despite their poor human rights record, are sending out warning shots that even they will pull out of this shoddy deal if the UK Government breach international law to implement it.
I will vote against Second Reading tonight, because there is no tweak or amendment that can improve something that is rotten to its core. The Bill is a doomed and draconian attempt to reassert the Prime Minister’s fragile claim to a non-existent authority, but it has serious consequences and sets an extremely dangerous precedent. These are deeply dangerous times in this country, and they are made more dangerous by this Government. We have already seen the suppression of the right to strike and to protest, and other democratic principles and standards seriously eroded. Now we have this flagrant attack on human rights, on our courts and on the separation of powers in this country. I call upon this Government to abandon their cruel, immoral and unworkable Rwanda plan, and to re-establish the UK’s good standing as a member of the ECHR and international community.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I will start by saying simply that I am not a massive fan of this policy. I suspect that will not come as a great surprise to the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), or the former Immigration Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). None the less, it is crucial. We need a deterrence policy. Whether or not it is workable is what sits at the heart of this debate.
As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I have heard the message time and again—whether from law enforcement, officials on the frontline, Ministers or our friends and neighbours in Europe—that deterrence has to work hand in hand with a fair asylum system. The idea that the solution is simply to open up more safe and legal routes is for the birds. We need them, but we also need hard deterrence to prevent abuse of our asylum system. When the policy was first announced, French officials told the Committee that there was a spike in asylum claims in France, because people feared what would happen to them if they made that irregular boat journey from France and ended up in another country. When the planes failed to take off, the spike in claims levelled off.
We have been to the beaches in Calais and spoken to asylum seekers in camps near the coast. We have spoken to our compatriots in Europe. It is clear that countries across Europe, and around the globe, are casting around for a solution to the challenge that we all face. Millions of people are on the move due to the effects of climate change and war. We are not on our own here. I gently suggest to friends and colleagues across the Chamber who think that the Government are tilting at a particularly British windmill that we are not. Versions of the scheme are being worked up across Europe and around the world.
While we should be proud of the schemes for Hong Kong residents and people from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Syria, we need a rational asylum system that extends to others who need genuine help. We need to erode our asylum backlog and I give full credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) for the work he put in to do just that. We need to put more work into inculcating citizenship for those who come here. We need a sensible discussion on legal migration and to be proud of the people who want to come, live and work here and set up their families here. Numbers should taper off only once we have geared the system enough to grow our own, not least to support agriculture, tourism, fisheries and social care, to avoid cliff edges.
But I go back to my main point. We also need a deterrent, one that stands up and says to the criminal gangs and the people traffickers that their trade will not work, and that they can try to put people on boats across the channel, but that those boats will be intercepted and their journey will not end in Britain. Doing that will break the trade and make the boats unviable, and that is a goal that we share across the Chamber.
The key issue the Supreme Court raised was whether Rwanda was considered to be a safe country in which to process asylum claims, and whether individuals sent there were at risk of refoulement. The Court argued that they were at risk. The measures in the new treaty, including independent monitoring and the new appeals body with a Commonwealth co-president should put those concerns to bed. The belt-and-braces approach the Government are taking is proportionate.
“It is consistent with the rule of law, going as far as it can, but no further, within the bounds of our international treaty obligations.”
Those are not my words, but those of Lord Wolfson.
I may dislike this policy and indeed the reality of where we find ourselves, but voting for this measure is the best route to stopping the boats, saving lives and crushing the business model of the criminal gangs who are exploiting some of the most vulnerable people in the world. I will support the Bill tonight.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I have been in this House on many occasions when we have discussed migration and it saddens me that invariably the narrative from Conservative Members is negative and pejorative. Immigration is always couched as a problem to be dealt with, rather than an opportunity to be embraced. I long for the day when we can have a positive discussion about the history of people moving from one country to another, which, almost everywhere, has been to the benefit of the country they go to. We can also have a positive discussion about fulfilling our international and humanitarian obligations to people seeking sanctuary, particularly as with our 200 years of imperial history we have a great responsibility for that.
The right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) is not in his place, but some of his remarks saddened me; I think he will come to regret talking of immigration as “this great scourge” and suggesting that any alternative to his proposal will result in a tenfold increase in boats coming across the channel. As an attempt to weaponise and politicise a very sensitive subject for political gain, it was very distressing. If there is a problem with migration policy in this country, it is a problem made by this Conservative Government. Let me give three examples of that.
First, the backlog has risen to a shocking level of almost 100,000 people waiting to have their applications determined. That was a simple management failure by the Government of not deploying enough resources to do the job in front of them. That statement is incontrovertible, because the evidence is there that when they did employ more people and more caseworkers, the numbers turned and began to come down. Today, they have 2,500 caseworkers processing claims. The money they have already spent on this expensive Rwanda gimmick would pay for three times the number of caseworkers. Imagine what could be done with that capacity to deal with the problem.
Secondly, everybody agrees that it is completely unsatisfactory that people who claim asylum in this country and want to make their case should be locked away for months on end in hotel accommodation that is not fit for their needs. It is a problem for the communities in which those hotels are located, and it is also a problem for the people who are forced to remain in that substandard and inadequate accommodation while their claims are processed. However, it is a choice made by the Government to treat those people as guilty until proven innocent, and to detain them in this way.
An alternative system would be to look at a claim, and in the event of a determination that it could not be assessed within a number of days, to grant a temporary permit allowing the applicant to remain in the country and to work while he or she was here. What would happen if that were the arrangement? Well, first of all the hotel bill would disappear, but, more important, people would seek the support of their families, friends and communities already in this country and that of funded voluntary organisations, at a much lesser cost to the taxpayer than is currently the case, and—even more important—they would start doing work and paying tax in this country. It has been suggested to me that if we did that, all the people would fall through the system because it would be impossible to control them. I put it to the Home Office that it has already lost 90,000 records, and I rather fear that if people were allowed to work here, the HMRC system might be rather better at enabling us to know where they were than the current regime.
Thirdly, there is the question of the boats. There is talk about disrupting the traffickers’ business plan, but it was gifted to them by the Government, who closed down the legal routes to this country, thereby opening up these business opportunities. The best way to get rid of the traffickers would be to ensure that there is a system in place whereby anyone who wishes to apply for asylum in this country can do so and their application is determined if, efficaciously and swiftly, a judgment is made and the application is either rejected or accepted. We talk as though everyone coming here in these boats were illegal and undeserving. Even according to the latest figures, three quarters of those applicants have been granted asylum because they have a legitimate claim.
On the Rwanda policy itself, I referred to it earlier as a gimmick, but let me deal briefly with the point about deterrence. We know that the Rwanda scheme will make an infinitesimal contribution, with perhaps 100 or 200 places for people being deported to Rwanda. In recent years, 300 people have died making the journey across the channel. Will someone please tell me why, if people are prepared to make that very dangerous journey in spite of the risk of death, they would stop making it because of the much lesser risk of being deported to Rwanda? The truth is that these people have a right and a need to come here and apply to be here, and if we were humanitarian at all, we would respect that.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The small boats are of particular concern to me, as the Member representing Dover and Deal, because it is in my constituency that they arrive. Dover is, in a very real sense, on the frontline of this crisis, and it is on the shores of the English channel that I have stood too often in sadness for the many lives that have been lost, and lost unnecessarily, because each and every person was safe already in France. If we stop the boats, we save lives—and we do not just save lives; we cut crime, and we put a stop to the criminal gangs who smuggle people.
That brings me to the key question that is before the House today. Will the Bill stop the boats? What we know is that it is clear from the recent Supreme Court judgment that the Court does not think Rwanda is acceptable, and I fear that in its current form the Bill will not change that position, not least because the tone of the Court’s decision was so emphatic. It certainly will not do so in the next few months, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) explained so clearly and passionately. We have made substantial progress this year in reducing the number of small boat arrivals, and I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that he and the Government have done in that regard.
It is a fact that diplomacy can sometimes succeed where all else fails, and that was the experience when it came to stopping the lorry smuggling. Under Lord Cameron, extraordinary arrangements were made with France to take joint action to stop the lorries, just as we need to stop the boats now. Then, it was said that no deal could be done, yet it was. That is why, following the Supreme Court judgment, we must turn to diplomacy once again, with a cross-channel agreement to return people to France rather than Rwanda. Indeed, Italy has done a deal with Albania and there is nothing to prevent the UK and France from doing a similar deal. We must look at all options that can work, because it is only when migrants and people smugglers alike know that they cannot succeed through this cross-channel route that this small boats crisis will finally come to an end.
We should not stop there, because we need to modernise asylum as well. Asylum and the refugee convention were created in a very different time, and it must be recognised that the movement of very large numbers of people now involves journeys that are all too often incredibly dangerous. That needs to be addressed not just by the UK but by the west as a whole. A reformed international law would seek to keep people displaced by conflict close to their homes so that they can return and rebuild when the conflict ends. These changes would help control migration, prevent dangerous journeys, save lives and keep safe those vulnerable people who are impacted by wars and other circumstances in their homelands.
I have been making the case for a long time that the Government should start international discussions about a new global migration settlement, because the whole House knows that this is a concern not just for our country but across Europe as a whole. It is vital that we stop these dangerous journeys and that globally the UK should build on our incredible record of providing places of safety close to conflict zones. That is the way to protect people, to save lives and to help them rebuild their homelands when conflict ends. It would also cut crime by tackling the global illegal people-smuggling criminal networks and ruthless criminal gangs that, according to the National Crime Agency, fuel other serious and organised crime from their vast profits.
I have stood on the white cliffs of Dover with Prime Minister Boris Johnson and with the current Prime Minister. I want to stop the boats, but I am gravely concerned that the Bill in its current form will not do what the Government want. The House might want to reflect that when the immediate former Home Secretary, the former Immigration Minister and the Member for the constituency most directly affected by this crisis—among many others—all say that this Bill may not work and may not deliver what the Government are saying it will, those concerns ought to be heeded. I sincerely hope that whatever happens in the voting today, the Government will consider both operational and diplomatic ways forward, for which I and others have been making the case, which could deliver much more quickly the results that we all wish to see in the coming months.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
This is a new low even for this Tory Government. This Bill is spawned by overpromising on immigration over many years by the Conservatives. They are constantly seeking to hoodwink people into believing that they are competent enough to deal with this situation. On the balance of evidence, the courts have decided that Rwanda is not a safe country for them to send people who are seeking asylum to, so the Government have stamped their feet and brought legislation here so that they can legislate to say that something that is wrong is right. That is a new low that I have not experienced in all my years in this place.
It is a slippery slope when a Government take that sort of power to themselves. Where will it stop? Some of the speeches made on the Government Benches have raised that question. I understand that there are at least five different families, as I think they are called, over there on the Conservative Benches, who all disagree with one another. I think there might be seven. They have their own private version of “Gangs of New York” going on. We will have to have a general election soon because they are going to run out of backs into which to put their respective knives. This is the third such piece of legislation that we have had in just two years, and each time the Conservatives have told us, “This is going to stop the boats.” We had the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which we were told would stop the boats, and now we have the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill.
I am impressed by the stand the Rwandans have taken. Without taking a single refugee or asylum seeker, they have upped the ante threefold. They were given £140 million just to go to the table and talk about it. Now we are told the figure is up to £400 million and still growing, and Rwanda has not taken a single asylum seeker, which is an incredible feat.
Not only that, but Rwanda will offer only 100 or possibly 200 places a year. This is going to cost £2 million per person on the current figures, which is an incredible achievement by the Rwandan Government. I cannot understand why Conservative Members are not arguing about why the numbers are so low. They are arguing about people being able to take their individual cases to court, but they do not seem to be concerned that the number of places is so small. The policy is hardly likely to be much of a deterrent when so few people will be sent to Rwanda in any one year.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is waxing eloquent on Rwanda’s excellent negotiation with the Government. Does he agree that the Rwandan authorities seem to have hoodwinked the UN as well?
Clive Efford
I will not go down that rabbit hole, if the hon. Member will forgive me. I think Rwanda has done an incredible job. Furthermore, it has reined in the Conservatives by saying, “We also have international agreements. We have treaties and agreements with other countries that require us to abide by international laws and conventions. If you, the UK Government, don’t want to abide by them, we certainly do.” Rwanda has almost saved the Conservatives from themselves, from going too far in breaching international laws and conventions.
I have listened with interest to the speeches from Conservative Members, and the Gangway has never seemed so wide. It seems to be the equivalent of the Berlin wall for the left and right of the Conservative party. Listening to their speeches, they seem to be completely irreconcilable. There are those who want to defend the rule of law and the right of individuals to seek to uphold their rights in court, and those who want to take away that power. Members have made it quite clear that they are not going to vote for legislation if it does not satisfy their requirements, but the two requirements are complete opposites—they are totally and utterly irreconcilable.
I do not see how the Prime Minister is going to resolve this conundrum. From the expression on his face earlier, he has clearly managed to cobble together a coalition to get the Bill through today. He is confident of that.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s reflections on the Conservative party, but what are his reflections on the Labour party’s policy or absence thereof?
Clive Efford
I hear it all the time from the Conservatives that Labour does not have a policy. It would be nice if one of the policies implemented by this Government over the past few years actually worked. That would have been a revelation.
I commend—[Interruption.] Can we have a bit of silence over there? I commend the Government for the arrangement they have made with Albania, which is the sort of route we should be taking. Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box today and said, “We have brought the small boat crossings down by a third.” That is largely due to the agreement with Albania, which is an indisputable fact. By being practical in dealing with things at source, we could resolve this problem. Investing in dealing with the gangs—[Interruption.] They are all laughing over there, but the fact is that convictions for trafficking people across the channel are down by 30%.
Perhaps Conservative Members should take a look at themselves and understand why this problem exists. It is because of the sheer incompetence of the Government. Some 160,000 people were included in the net immigration figures because the Government failed to deal with their asylum cases within a year and the Office for National Statistics included them in the figures. That is just sheer incompetence from this Conservative Government. They are incompetent in dealing with people’s claims, and in dealing with the boats and the illegal operations running them.
This is the fault of the Conservative Government from beginning to end, and this Rwanda scheme is doomed to fail. With its rhetoric, the Conservative party has overpromised and brought us to the point where we are having to legislate that black is white and that the Tories can have their own facts.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
The Rwanda policy is just one tool in a suite of tools designed to stop the boats and, more importantly, break the criminal gangs that profit from the hope of people who just want to have a better life. Last week, Essex police secured the conviction of an 11th person following the smuggling of the 39 Vietnamese who were found perished in my constituency. If we add the 18 people convicted in France for being part of the same smuggling operation, 29 people have been convicted of trafficking as a result of that investigation, which proves that we can break those criminal gangs if we target our resources on them. They are the real villains of this piece, and they are the people we should be focusing on.
I am happy to support the Bill tonight. I have never been an enthusiastic supporter of the Rwanda policy, but I recognise that we need a suite of tools with which to stop this trade and, obviously, anything that would provide a deterrent is welcome. However, we need to be realistic; if someone is prepared to get into a rickety inflatable boat to get across the channel, they are going to take considerable risk, and the Bill will only ever be a small part of this. The returns agreements are by far the most important ingredient we have, and I am glad the Government are still putting those front and centre of all their efforts.
I question how we have got to the ridiculous place this week where Conservative Members are all falling out with each other over a small element of a bigger policy. That is completely stupid, and the only people who benefit are those on the Opposition Benches. For those who are prepared to give them a victory tonight, I say, “Good luck to you. That’s great. But some of us are more intent on delivering the outcome, which is stopping the boats and breaking the criminal gangs who profit from other people’s misery.”
I hope that everybody reflects on what they are going to do tonight. We should never let the best be the enemy of the good. Politics is the art of the possible. If we pass this Bill tonight, we will be that bit closer to really tackling this problem. If we do not, we will look like a laughing stock, because we will have marched everyone up to the top of the hill only to back down again. So I implore my colleagues: you may not feel when you walk into the Lobby that the Bill totally matches your ideology, but it goes one step closer to delivering the outcome that we want, which is to save people’s lives and make sure that fewer people die crossing the channel.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
First, let me say that the Bill’s objective is supported by our party, as it should be by all reasonable people across the UK. The impact that illegal immigration has had on communities across the UK, be it in terms of the pressure it puts on schools, the health service, housing and other public services, or in terms of crime and the rewards it gives to criminal gangs, means that there is a duty on this Government to address this issue. The question is: does the Bill actually do that?
We have heard many speeches today, with some talking about the Bill’s inadequacies, others saying how important it is and others saying that it is only a political ploy in any case. Although similar Bills have been brought to this House and Rwanda has been talked about, we have sent Ministers and money there, but no migrants. That is because we have not learned from the flaws in the previous Bills.
Those flaws still exist in this Bill, because the Government are trying to get to a balance that includes the views of the lawyers who sit in the corner of the Conservative Benches and lecture us all about comity, responsibility and using powers responsibly. If they were using powers responsibly, the first thing they would do is live up to their manifesto commitment to deal with the problem and pay heed to the people who are negatively impacted by illegal immigration.
It is fine to talk in grand terms about the legal procedures and to give us lectures on comity, the balance between Parliament and the courts, and everything else. That does not rank too much with people who cannot get their youngsters into a school or the support from the health service that they require, or who find that wages locally are being driven down or rents are being pushed up. It is for that reason that I think the Government have introduced a Bill that, while it has a fine aim, does not reach the objectives that they have set out.
The one thing that has been missing from the debate today is the impact that the Bill is likely to have on Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is different. This House voted to leave Northern Ireland under the control of the European Union, through the Windsor framework and the Northern Ireland protocol, and we are under the remit of the European Court of Human Rights as a result of the Belfast agreement, which the Government are happy to change when it suits them but say they cannot change when it does not suit them. The fact of the matter is that the Bill does not deal with the issues that need to be dealt with if we are to attack the legal arguments that illegal immigrants use to stay in the United Kingdom.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that in 2016, on the BBC’s “Spotlight” programme, a constituent said to him that they were seeking to “get the ethnics out” and he appeared to say, “You’re dead right”? Is that why he is so supportive of the Bill?
Sammy Wilson
First of all, that is inaccurate—I did not say that. Secondly, this is all about the United Kingdom safeguarding its own borders and dealing with the kinds of issues that need to be dealt with, including in Belfast. Despite what people may think and what the Secretary of State said from the Dispatch Box, Northern Ireland is greatly impacted by the issue. Belfast is the second city of the United Kingdom when it comes to the number of immigrants being housed per head of population, and that is causing all kinds of problems. If the hon. Lady wishes to ignore the concerns of her constituents, that is fine, but I want to address them.
As it stands, article 2(1) of the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union applies in Northern Ireland, and the High Court has recently judged that that is grounds for people who wish to remain in the United Kingdom, having entered illegally, to bring a case. Certain aspects of European law are removed by the Bill, but not that one. Without a change to the charter of fundamental rights, Northern Ireland will be a gateway, because all the arguments that the Government are hoping to disapply will apply in Northern Ireland.
Of course, the European Court of Human Rights is embedded in the Belfast agreement. The Bill does not deal with that, so all the arguments used under the European Court of Human Rights will apply in Northern Ireland, and the European Court of Justice will be able to make a judgment as to whether the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights and the charter of fundamental rights are being applied when people make their case. What will be the impact of that? First, it will make Northern Ireland a magnet for people who might find that the route to staying in the United Kingdom is blocked, but in Northern Ireland it will not be, because we will still be under EU immigration rules, and the European Court of Justice can make the judgment. Secondly, if those people decide that they do not want to remain in Northern Ireland, with the free movement from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom and, indeed, with the common travel area, they could move into the rest of the United Kingdom. If that becomes a large number of people, will we then have people barriers between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom? These are issues that have either not been considered by the Minister or have been wilfully neglected, and for that reason, we cannot support this Bill.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
As usual, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) talks a lot of good sense.
I am uniquely badly affected in my constituency. As a result of our inability to control illegal migration, the Government want to put 2,000 illegal migrants into RAF Scampton, which our local social services simply cannot cope with, and would probably atrophy £300 million-worth of investments. My constituents are not focused on whether we have Rwanda or not Rwanda; they just want the boats to be stopped, or at least severely mitigated. We have heard many criticisms and good knockabout stuff from the Opposition, but the only solutions that anybody in the world has come up with to stop illegal migration are either with pushback, which is uniquely difficult in the channel, or with offshoring, and nothing works. Therefore we have to do something.
The world is in such a parlous state that there is no end to the misery and the number of people who want to come here. I hear that we should speed up asylum applications. That is all very well, but the more we speed them up, the more people will come. I hear that we should do more on the beaches of France. I understand that—I do not understand why the French cannot do more—but that will not stop them. The only thing that will work is what the Government are trying to do.
It is all so unfair. This morning, I mentioned the case of Maira Shahbaz, who was raped and abducted in Pakistan, and who is still waiting to get here. She is a genuine asylum seeker. So many genuine asylum seekers cannot get here, because illegal migrants are abusing the system. There is nothing wrong with them individually; they are all nice young men who just want a job. However, if somebody breaks into your house and decides to steal your stuff, the police turn up, remove them and arrest them. We are in an absurd situation where people are entering this country illegally. Run by criminal gangs, they are jumping the queue, putting their lives at risk, and we are doing nothing about it. The public are just appalled. They cannot understand what is going on. They do not understand why we are putting people up in comfortable hotels, or in comfortable former airmen’s rooms. They do not know what is going on. They are paying for all of this and they want it to stop.
I hear all these different groups in the Conservative party. A House divided is a House that will be destroyed. We must work together; there is no other solution. I hear all the different voices that are going on, so I will just say that the Society of Conservative Lawyers and the Policy Exchange—not left-wing groups—think that this Bill will work. The Government think that it will work. The ERG has some doubts, but we have to work together to try to get this Bill through. Let us get it through Parliament as quickly as possible, get it through the Lords and try to stop the boats.
We can legislate all we want to ignore the ECHR, including rule 39 interim measures, but even if we did so, we would very soon face a final judgment from the Strasbourg Court, by which everyone agrees we would be bound. That is the legal situation. The only way that we can remove the Strasbourg Court is by leaving the ECHR. That may well happen, but the Government do not have a mandate to do so at the moment. They cannot get it through Parliament; it is a matter, I suspect, for the next manifesto. Meanwhile, this Bill probably goes just about as far as we can go. I am sorry, but we must be realistic: this is all we can get through Parliament.
As both the Society of Conservative Lawyers and Policy Exchange have said, a Bill would not be workable if it did not allow for narrow claims for individual circumstances. Even the report of the ERG’s star chamber seems to accept that there should be some possibility of claims in cases of bad faith. The key question is whether our system can process and dismiss those spurious claims quickly enough. Under the arrangements we have for removal to Albania, illegal migrants have even wider avenues for claims, but they have still led to a 90% fall in small boats arrivals from Albania.
The Bill is roughly in the right ballpark, but I hope that before the Committee stage the Government will consider whether clause 4 can be tightened further and whether they can share further evidence of the ability to process and deal with spurious claims. It is a question of will. In 1939, when we were facing a world war and a crisis, overnight we exported—
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Karl Turner
What does the hon. Gentleman think of the reciprocal arrangement for the Rwandan Government to send asylum seekers to this country?
Sir Edward Leigh
Of course none of us like any of that, but we have to get the Bill past the courts. We have to get it through Parliament. We have to be realistic. The Supreme Court has opined that there is a risk—I would say a vanishingly small one—that failed asylum seekers might be sent back to Iraq or Syria. Therefore, in order to get the Bill through Parliament and past the Supreme Court, the Government have had to make that concession. We do not like it, but that is the real world.
Politics is about reality. Therefore, this Bill must go through and be dealt with as quickly as possible. The onus on the Government now is to ensure that we can speed up the removal cases. It would be ludicrous if many hundreds of migrants, having come here illegally, were allowed to delay matters for up to a year by going to a tribunal, the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court. The whole scheme will be bogged down and we will look completely ridiculous as a Government.
In order to survive and have a hope of winning the general election, the Government must also sort out the problem of legal migration. We cannot have a situation where 700,000 people are pouring into this country every year. We must pay care staff a proper salary so that we can get more of our own people working in that sector. We must deal with illegal migration, deal with legal migration and, by the way, build some more houses for our own people.
If we start working together as a party, if we stop making personal attacks on each other, if we stop questioning one another’s good faith, the Conservative party has a chance—because what has Labour got to offer? No solutions at all. If Labour gets into power it will never sort out this problem. The only hope is this Government and this Conservative party.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
There was a time not long ago when the unique selling point of the Conservative party was showing predictable and consistent support for the rule of law, being in favour of international treaties and organisations, and showing competency in the conduct of government. Alas, that has all changed. As we hear the rhetoric from those on the Government Benches today, we see a party that is increasingly going down a number of populist rabbit holes, fuelled by the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), whose scaremongering and irresponsible rhetoric is clearly designed for his leadership bid after the election rather than being any statement of fact.
The Conservative party now sees the courts and judges, not only in this country but abroad, as the enemy. They see lawyers as the pub bore does: as the enemy of the people, lefty lawyers and do-gooders. Where have we got to when the Conservative party goes down that route? The only person on the Conservative Benches I have heard defending the rights of the courts—an important part of our constitution—has been the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).
Clause 2, as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), is not about changing policy; it is about changing facts. It is about saying, “Rwanda will be a safe country, and as long as we accept that and get it through this House with a parliamentary majority, that is a fact.” That is a little like saying, “The black cat is white,” as long as it gets through Parliament, irrespective of what the evidence tells us, which is that the cat is actually black. That is dangerous, because it leads to dictatorial parliamentary democracy. It is not only that the façade of democracy damages our reputation. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), who said that it is all very well for the Government of the day to argue for this, but what happens if the boot is on the other foot, and another Government put things forward that the Conservatives do not like?
The international treaties that we pride ourselves on were born of the destruction and ashes of the second world war. Today, they are being defended on the battlefields of Ukraine. It saddens me to hear the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and others wishing just to throw away those conventions, or the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) wishing to pick and mix which bits of international treaties we should abide by. It is a little ironic, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said, that Rwanda is giving a nation such as Great Britain a lesson in international law.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) said that the Government are governing in slogans. He is right, but those slogans come with a cost: £300 million of taxpayers’ money has already been wasted, with possibly another £100 million to go, on a system that the Department’s permanent secretary has said will not work, with money that has to be signed off by ministerial order rather than by the civil servants. This is not the first try, as my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) said; it is the Government’s third bite of the cherry in trying to solve the problem.
The right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Sir Conor Burns) said that we have to “keep faith” and “be straight with” the public. Well, we do need to be straight with the public: not only will the Bill not work, but it will damage this country’s international reputation. The Bill will raise expectations are waste taxpayers’ money, and it needs to be ditched. That is why I will vote against it.
I look with interest, as we all do, at the spectacle of the Conservative party tearing itself apart, but although I may disagree politically with the coalition that is the Conservative party, I have respect for some of the individuals in it. What is happening now is not good for our democracy. Sadly, the tired old nag that is this Government will be put out of its misery only when we have a general election.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Our country finds itself in a difficult situation. The Government rightly made a commitment to the public that we would both stem illegal immigration and protect our borders while upholding our moral and legal duty to offer refuge to those fleeing violence or persecution.
Our efforts to stop people dying in the channel, to stop the criminal gangs and to stop the boats have been opposed at every turn—opposed by the Labour party, opposed through the legal system, and, of course, opposed by the criminal gangs profiting from the dangerous and illegal routes. It is claimed that this is a problem for the UK alone—that it is our Government’s problem alone—but it is, in fact, shared with our neighbours and allies across Europe, who face their own, often greater, challenges with illegal immigration.
Those challenges are not going away. Instead, as a consequence of climate change and global instability, they are likely only to get worse. Our approach to asylum needs to be fair both to the asylum seekers themselves and to our communities. Our communities have opened their hearts and homes to those seeking refuge, but that must happen through safe and legal routes. We cannot cede control of our borders to criminal gangs; we must tackle illegal immigration.
The European convention on human rights is often cited as the barrier that is preventing control of our borders. I am proud of the UK’s leading role in promoting human rights across the globe, and I want us to continue that and to support the ECHR, but the judgments of the Court appear to have moved away from simply guaranteeing the basic and fundamental rights enshrined in the treaty. Judgments have begun to infringe upon democratic decision making, and there appears to be no obvious way of holding the courts to account. That has been called judicial activism, but whatever we call it, the answer is not to withdraw from the ECHR or to break international law; the answer is to come together again, as we did in 1949, to find the answers to the challenges of the present day. That will take time, of course, and right now the Government must take steps that are within their power to control illegal immigration.
Colleagues may remember my unease about a previous Bill that threatened to break international law. I was unable to support that Bill unamended, and had the same issues arisen with this Bill, my sentiment would be the same. However, the difference is that I have been assured that the Bill, as it stands, does not break international law. It is by no means perfect—we could spend a lot of time seeking perfection, but the challenges we face are real and impacting on lives now. I will therefore give my caveated support to the Bill tonight as a near-term measure to tackle illegal immigration, but at the same time, I give my unwavering support to the Government to engage with our international partners and work towards a long-term, sustainable solution.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
Public services are on the verge of collapse, the gap between rich and poor has widened, and we are slipping back into the Victorian era. Food bank use is at an all-time high, and workers have not had a decent pay rise in 15 years. But we are not here today to talk about those things—in fact, we are barely ever here to talk about them in any meaningful way. We are here to legislate on the dog-whistle, fantasist policies of the Conservative party, who are electioneering when they should be governing, not offering any real solutions to problems and attempting to divert attention from their own failings as a Government. They are wasting the time of this House and squandering the good will of the people of this country.
We keep going round and round on this matter. Our Supreme Court has ruled on it: it found Rwanda to be unsafe, a ruling that was based on evidence. Legislating the opposite is not going to rid us of the facts. This is not an exercise in parliamentary sovereignty, but an abuse of this Parliament’s functions. It undermines the rule of law and the constitutional separation of powers. Yes, we are lawmakers and we can make and change the law, but the law cannot be used to change the facts.
Another fact is that the treaty with Rwanda, coupled with the Bill, breaches many of our obligations under international law. If that were in doubt in any way, the Government have helpfully outlined that fact throughout the entire Bill. Clause 3, for example, disapplies key sections of the Human Rights Act. It directly prevents the courts from applying the Bill in a way that is compatible with convention rights, it prevents any consideration of previous rulings of the European Court of Human Rights that have found Rwanda to be unsafe, and it removes human rights obligations from public bodies, including courts. The Bill would place an obligation on every single decision maker who has found Rwanda unsafe to simply rule it as safe. It restricts the courts’ ability to protect people who are at risk of harm, and it restricts individual legal protections. Do the Government fully understand what that means? Do they see how far they have sunk? Are they so fanatical about this flawed policy that they would bar courts from considering the very reasons why Rwanda might be unsafe, stripping people of individual legal protections?
From the very outset, this Bill has been ridiculous. Conservative Members would do well to note that there is no more empire. International law is not whatever we say it is; it is comprised of agreements and treaties adopted by Members of this House, and to dismiss them as the rules of foreign courts is as irresponsible as it is untrue. We signed up to those solemn and binding rules, so the Bill risks our international reputation and makes us hypocrites. How dare we condemn other countries that do not uphold international law, and how dare we preach to them, when we would undermine the rule of law ourselves? This Government do not really care about that, though. They care more about the squabbles of the Conservative party than our standing as a country.
If this Government were serious about resolving the issues surrounding small boats, they would do more to target people traffickers, and they would provide safe and legal routes. People do not take those perilous journeys for fun: they are often fleeing some of the worst persecution. They are some of the most vulnerable people in the world, not the Conservative party’s scapegoats. As has already been said, those who seek asylum from countries such as Ukraine and Hong Kong do not have to come by unconventional means because the Government have given them the ability to come by other means. The Government need to stop misleading the public with their use of the word “illegal”, because seeking asylum in this country is not illegal; it is not against any of our laws, domestic or international.
It is the Government who have exacerbated the problems in the asylum system, not the vulnerable people who are seeking asylum. We know this because the vast majority of claims are justified. After lengthy delays, three quarters of applications are accepted. The longer these processes drag on, the longer refugees and asylum seekers are prevented from rebuilding their lives in this country, and from working and contributing to our economy.
This Government have already spent hundreds of millions of pounds on a policy that is as crap as it is unworkable. [Interruption.] There is nothing more telling than the fact that the Secretary of State has been unable to make a section 19 statement. He could not say that this Bill was compatible with the European convention on human rights. The Home Secretary means to take us all for fools. For the second time this year, he cannot say that his plans for removing asylum seekers to Rwanda will not break international law. The Rwandan Government have been very clear. They have said that they will not continue with this deal if it does not meet the highest standards of international law. This Bill does not do that. This Government are wasting our time. This is not going to work, and I am not even sure it was meant to.
I am sick and tired of being dragged to this House to approve legislation that does nothing to improve the lives of my constituents or uphold the values of our society. This Bill should simply not be allowed to go any further.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am sure that when Members rush to read Hansard tomorrow, they will read the word “crass”.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Thank you, and I am sure that Hansard will have taken note of that.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The starting point for this debate has been the good work of a series of Conservative Immigration Ministers in working closely with their French counterparts. In particular, it is worth recalling the contribution of our late colleague James Brokenshire, whose work with the French authorities to increase security at the ferry terminals, lorry parks and around the channel tunnel in northern France, while enormously successful in reducing the numbers putting their lives at risk when being smuggled to the UK by that route, has been instrumental in driving those gangs to use small boats across the channel as the means of carrying on their trade.
I started out as something of a Rwanda sceptic, and having spent many years in local government and seen the cost challenges that face many of our local authorities in supporting refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, it did seem to me a very expensive policy per capita. However, having had the opportunity to reflect both on the visits I made to the jungle in Calais in 2016, before the security measures were put in place, and on what I have heard from agencies, including French and UK agencies operating against the gangs in France, as well as directly from some of the migrants waiting to cross the channel, it seems very clear to me that this policy has, as part of a wider range of measures, great utility in acting as a deterrent.
The policy will not by any means apply to everybody, and we know that people will continue to come to the UK, including, as they have done, to the local authority on which I served through the routes to Heathrow airport. However, a measure that helps address the unique circumstances we face in the English channel is absolutely essential. It seems to me that this Rwanda policy and the Bill today have enormous utility in addressing the risks that people are putting themselves to and the profits that the criminal gangs continue to make.
A great deal of the debate has focused on the detail of the legalities of this Bill. It certainly seems to me an enormous improvement on where we were previously. It reflects the judgment of the Supreme Court in saying that the key concern that needs to be satisfied is that anybody who is sent to Rwanda as a result of this policy needs to have sufficient safeguards on human rights that we can be confident, in particular, that they would not be moved to another country where those human rights would be abused. That replicates the agreements we have for deportations to many other countries, and it upholds the standards that we see from the United Nations, the European Union and countries, such as Austria and Germany, that are already exploring with Rwanda and others similar arrangements to address their likely concerns about the impact of high levels of uncontrolled migration across Europe and elsewhere.
I reflect on the fact that I am receiving a great deal of lobbying from leading figures in my local authorities, who are enormously concerned that the cumulative cost of accommodating large numbers of people who have arrived in a fairly short space of time means that we are struggling to ensure that access to housing, access to education and access to other important public services is maintained to the standard we would wish. In that context, dealing with those who, as a number of Members have highlighted, have effectively jumped the queue—rather than those who have played fairly, followed the correct process and come here because of their connections to the UK—represents an unfair loss of public money for that purpose.
Although this Bill is not perfect, it should be set alongside the work being done by a number of Ministers to improve decision making in the Home Office and the arrangements that have been made, working with local authorities, through things such as the national resettlement scheme for refugee children, which has led to the fairly seamless accommodation of more than double the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the UK. We have also seen additional local authority areas volunteering to become dispersal areas for asylum seekers and to take part in resettlement schemes compared with where we have been before, and we have the contribution that foreign students, 600,000 of whom we committed to bring to this country in our election manifesto of 2019, continue to make to our economy, which now represents a foreign currency earner larger than our oil and gas industry. That demonstrates a migration and immigration policy that in the round continues to serve the interests of the British people.
I will finish on this question. We have heard a great deal of criticism of the policy and challenges back to those who aspire to form a Government about what their policy would be. A key issue that I have not yet heard addressed in the points made about a new returns unit with perhaps a thousand staff is this: if a negotiated agreement of this nature and with this legal basis with Rwanda is not sufficient, it is incumbent on the Opposition to answer on which other countries they are seeking to negotiate those agreements with. To what extent have those agreements been reached? If returns agreements are the key policy that the Labour party wishes to have as a point of difference, it is clear at the moment that that emperor has no clothes.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Let us not beat abound the bush: this Bill is in retaliation and is a crass payback for the Supreme Court’s decision on 15 November that the Government’s Rwanda asylum plan was unlawful. It sets a dangerous precedent. It undermines the democratic contracts of the state while also undermining what constitutes the truth. Declaring something to be true does not make it fact. Evidently, this Bill also undermines the UK’s international treaties and conventions, including the European convention on human rights, with which the Home Secretary has stated that this Bill might not comply. Sections 2, 3 and 6 to 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998 are also disapplied.
The UK Government are acting hypocritically by requiring the Rwandan Government to abide by the standards of international law while disapplying them for themselves. This Bill does reputational damage to the UK at home and abroad. The Government may say that others have set a precedent for this Bill, but that argument is flimsy. The UN Committee against Torture has expressed concerns about Denmark’s intentions to move refugees elsewhere. Israel abandoned its agreement to send Eritrean and Sudanese asylum seekers to Rwanda and Uganda, having been halted temporarily after legality challenges.
This legislation faces a series of hurdles, each likely to bring it down, and it comes at an unforgivable price—it has reportedly cost £240 million so far, with another £50 million agreed. Then we heard from the Secretary of State that there will be another £50 million and then yet another £50 million on top. It is in no way possible to justify this, given the cost of living crisis that we face.
No matter what the UK Government believe, Rwanda has been proven not to be a safe country for people seeking asylum. The Bill fails to address key issues raised by the Supreme Court, including human rights issues. Refugees have historically been ill treated after expressing criticism of the Government, with new provisions, such as the appeal body, untested. Fifteen Rwandan nationals have been granted protection since 2020, and this Bill excludes Rwandan nationals from its scope. How is that compatible with any definition of a safe country?
Under this Bill, anyone who arrives in the UK without a legitimate visa and has travelled via a “safe country” would be subject to removal, but what about people fleeing conflict zones who are unable to access documents such as passports and visas as embassies close down? What about the many Afghan men and women who were a crucial resource to the UK Government, and who have been left stranded and in peril? Where are the safe and legal routes?
This Bill is an affront to Plaid Cymru’s values and Wales’s aim of being a true nation of sanctuary. We are proud to be on the side of equality and want every person to have the same opportunities and the same access to justice, resources and services. We want to end recourse to public funds conditions, and allow all migrants and people seeking asylum access to the public services they require. How that is found to be contentious by the UK Government is beyond belief. Instead of engaging in electioneering and distraction policies, the Government should be expanding safe routes to ensure that fewer people decide to take the tortuous journey across the channel and at the mercy of smugglers.
To close, I refer to a model that Professor Emyr Lewis of Aberystwyth University uses when he is teaching public law. It illustrates the legislative supremacy of the UK Parliament through an imaginary potential Act: the Location of Aberystwyth (On the Moon) Bill. If an MP were to promote such a Bill and the Government were to support it, it would become law and no court in England or Wales could overturn it, but the reality of the location of Aberystwyth would remain utterly unchanged. When we are talking about the potential of the Bill to change the reality, I think we would do well to learn the lesson of Professor Emyr Lewis.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
This Bill tackles an issue that is vital to many of our constituents. We all know how important legal and illegal migration numbers are. I know from my own constituency, which is generous and kind, that there are real tensions when five hotels are used for illegal migrants in a town such as Skegness. There is no justification for that, and residents are rightly angry. When we get such issues wrong, we strain the social fabric of our country, and the Government have a duty not just to try to tackle illegal migration, but to strain every sinew to try to tackle it.
Perhaps surprisingly—even to me—I welcome how far this Bill goes. I welcome the fact that it is doing something novel, but I am uncomfortable in that position, because the Bill goes up to the line of international law. International law is important not because of some sentimental approach about what it means or even the fact that Britain was involved in writing some of it. It is important because it is the foundation on which we can do the deals with other countries—Albania, France and Italy, for instance—that allow us to tackle illegal migration. Rwanda cannot be the only thing that we do. If Rwanda is to happen, it must be a part of a meaningful package of measures, and if we go so far in one direction to try to ensure that flights to Rwanda take off, we will knock out other important parts of the deal that we need to do.
We need to be careful about walking a tightrope. While I am uncomfortable on that tightrope, others are uncomfortable for a very different reason, but that is what successful compromise on all sides looks like. If we try to go further, we risk undermining not just our ability to tackle the issue with a multipronged approach but Britain’s standing in the world. We will have a policy that will not work and a country that is less than where we started. No one in this House wants that. To use the phrase that has been around so much recently, there is the risk that we make the perfect the enemy of the good. People who convened a star chamber recently have declared the Bill a “partial solution”—perhaps we should not forget that the very first star chamber started the civil war in England, so maybe we have had enough of star chambers—but we should be alive to the danger in saying that something is a partial solution and is therefore no good. For me, a partial solution is better than no solution.
Tonight, we must grasp the nettle that says, “Yes, much of this is uncomfortable for many across the Conservative party, but we should be united in our desire to tackle an issue that matters to all our constituents.” We should have no shame in saying, “This is a plan that we can get behind, and it contrasts so sharply with the total lack of a plan from the other side of the House.”
If people want to criticise the Conservative approach—I gather that people do—it is incumbent on them to come up with their ideas. They cannot simply say, “We will employ more people to do it”, because the Government have already employed more people to do it. They cannot simply say, “We will try harder.” The BBC accused the Labour party of replacing a Bill simply with hope—I thought that was generous.
There has to be an alternative. A responsible Opposition —a responsible aspiring Government—surely have to come up with those plans, yet we hear nothing. The twofold reason to get behind the Bill is that it is an idea that will work in making a difference to this critical problem, and it is also the only idea in town. We have found ourselves in this excruciatingly difficult position because it is an intractable problem. In the absence of better ideas, people need to be careful what they wish for.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The hon. Member says that there are no credible options, but we have heard multiple speakers, organisations and lawyers say that there are. The Government should create safe routes and stop making people illegal, because no one is illegal. People are human beings, and they are coming here for very good reasons. They are coming from countries that we have happily bombed and interfered in, yet now we are not willing to take them in their hour of need.
Matt Warman
I do not understand the line that we are not willing to take people in their hour of need. When we look at the Ukraine and Hong Kong schemes, we see huge evidence of this country—dare I say it, England more than Scotland—housing those people in their hour of need. I agree with the hon. Member in so far as safe routes being a crucial part of the problem, but that should not be a stick to beat people with in pretending that we have not played a huge part. We should be immensely proud of the UK’s role.
I shall vote for Second Reading without huge enthusiasm except for the concept of our having a moral duty to address the problem. The view from a constituency such as mine, with a long and complex relationship with migration, is that when politicians make promises that they do not keep, it fractures not just the social fabric but that vital democratic thread that gives us legitimacy when we come here. We have a duty to tackle the issue in a way that makes a meaningful difference. We also have a duty to unite behind a plan that will make a real difference, even if we do not think it is perfect.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I attended my six-year-old son’s nativity play this morning—he was an angel. I was thinking of the story of baby Jesus, Mary and Joseph. The young children were playing the knocking noise as they tried to find a room, but there was no room and they were turned away. I thought, what has happened to our basic decency as a country? What has happened to our compassion? People are fleeing, and we want to close the door on them!
Like our public services, the last 13 years of this Government have left us with a dysfunctional asylum system. At the end of September, more than 160,000 people were waiting for an initial decision. We should remember that 75% of asylum claims are granted on the initial decision. Half of appeals against initial decisions are allowed—double the number in 2010. We are talking about people fleeing war and persecution. They go through so much stress, which no one in this House would ever want to experience. These people just want to start a new life after leaving their country of origin in horrific circumstances. For the vast majority, the welcome they get in the UK is a wait of more than six months, running into a year. After that, if they are lucky, they are given just 28 days to navigate the housing system and to find a job, after a break in activity.
I am proud to represent Vauxhall, a place where diversity is celebrated and welcomed. People from all over the country are welcomed. Other communities make our community in Vauxhall stronger. The current situation facing many people fleeing persecution is unacceptable and inhumane, and it gets worse. During their time waiting for a decision, their lives are on hold. They are often stuck in unsuitable accommodation, including a hotel in my constituency.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
The last time I went to the Council of Europe, I got off the train at the Gare du Nord in Paris, walked out and saw a row of north African men asleep in sleeping bags outside. When was the last time the hon. Lady saw that at a London station? Never.
Florence Eshalomi
I am not sure what relevance that has. The hon. Lady tells us what is happening in Paris, but our Government think that people sleeping in tents should not be housed. They want to demonise communities. I hope we never get to that situation, but the reality is that a number of people live in worse conditions: in hotel accommodation with four family members and no cooking facilities, eating bad, processed food. That is not how people should live. Her Government have failed to deal with that.
The Government have created a mess over the last 13 years. We all need to agree that we need urgent action to stop the exploitive gangs that put so many vulnerable people into terrifying and perilous boats. But, sadly, what we have from the Government is another broken plan, and no clue of how to solve the problem. There are two reasons why I cannot support the Bill. The first goes back to the simple waste of taxpayers’ money on achieving the Government’s goal. Under the scheme, £300 million of public money has been spent without a single asylum seeker being sent to Rwanda. It has achieved nothing. It could have been spent on our schools, hospitals or on properly cracking down at source on the criminal smuggler gangs that facilitate dangerous crossing. Instead, we have a failing scheme that risks breaking our international obligations and diminishing our standing in the world. That is why Members should think hard about supporting the Bill. They should think about how much that money could do in all our constituencies.
The UK Government’s own guidance on Rwanda states:
“LGBT individuals can experience discrimination and abuse, including from local authorities.”
We must be aware of the number of refugees who flee their country of origin because of persecution on the grounds of political repression and sexuality. My Vauxhall constituency is a proud LGBT-friendly place, and I will always stand up to protect communities globally from the persecution they face.
Earlier this year, at UK Black Pride, I met people from African Rainbow Family, a charity that helps and supports LGBTQI people from African and black and minority ethnic backgrounds. They spoke about the difficulties they and their members have had navigating the Home Office system. They spoke about people’s long waits for their asylum claims. They spoke about the fact that they feel they are continuously being persecuted and that that is coming from the top of this Government. We should be worried about a Bill that wishes for us not to respect our international treaties and obligations. Demonising and othering people should not be happening in 2023.
There are no signs that the Bill will be effective in its main aim of deterring channel crossings. The Bill pleases no one and does nothing to help solve the problems in our asylum system. Instead, we should be looking at how we can work with our international partners and our community to address some of the humanitarian crises that are the key cause of people fleeing their homes in the first instance. We should look at how we can work with communities so that people do not need to flee their homes in the first instance. We should look at how we can spend money on a serious plan to crack down on the criminal gangs and clear the massive backlog in our asylum system.
We have all sat in surgeries for MPs, raising cases. I see the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) in his place. He was very helpful when he was the immigration Minister. I raise cases that began before I was elected, four years ago, of people who are still waiting for an answer from the Home Office. That is what we should be addressing. I urge the Government to withdraw the Bill and look at other ways to help people.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I have said it before and I will say it again: Doncaster is full. [Interruption.] I often get challenged, as I just was from the Opposition Benches, when I say as a Christian that Doncaster is full, but I do not think it is very Christian to put people in boats who will, sadly, sometimes fall. I do not think it is Christian to promise people a life in this country when we do not have the services for them. I do not think it is Christian to take the best people from developing countries because we do not train our own in this country. I do not think it is Christian when my constituents have to put up with immigration at the level it is at.
We have heard the lawyers in this House speak so eloquently, as they often do. We hear the left-wing lawyers do the same, but at least the lawyers in this place are probably trying to help—at least those on the Government side of the House. Unfortunately, outside, we have left-wing lawyers making six-figure salaries calling me and people like me awful. We have TV pundits on seven-figure salaries, paid by my constituents through TV licences, again calling me awful. Well, I ask the people on those huge salaries to sell everything they have and give it all away, and come and get a job in Doncaster, probably on £25,000 or £30,000 a year. I ask them to find themselves a partner and then go and buy their dream house.
Those people buy that dream house—a three-bedroom semi or mid-terrace—and they make the garden nice so their kids can play in the garden. There is a couple next door who have kids themselves, and everything is rosy. Then all of a sudden the neighbour decides to move on—he gets a different job or moves somewhere else—and that house is turned into a house in multiple occupation. Then we have nine people who do not speak English bedhopping—[Interruption.] That is what is happening. It is no good saying it is not happening; it is happening. [Interruption.] If anyone wants to come and have a look, then please come and have a look, because I am sorry, but you are burying your head in the sand trying to make yourselves look good in front of people to get votes. This is happening. It is happening in Doncaster and in places throughout the country. We are turning parts of our community into a ghetto. This is what is happening.
All of a sudden, you are living next door to an HMO and there are comings and goings at 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning, with people outside smoking. The grass does not get cut any more, the windows do not get cleaned any more and, unfortunately, you feel too scared to let your child play out in the garden any more. There are no gated communities here to make people feel safe, because, remember, you are not on a seven-figure salary now; you are earning £30,000 a year. The only protection is a lock on the door. The council might introduce a public spaces protection order, but would probably not enforce it. This is what is happening.
You cannot sell your house, or if you can, you have to sell it at a discount. Your little child falls over in the street and you have to go to A&E, and there is a 12-hour waiting list. The reason the waiting lists are so long is that people do not speak English in these places any more. [Interruption.] This is what is happening! In the schools, the classes are all oversized—[Interruption.] This is what is happening. Members can shout me down. They can say what they want—I really do not care—but this is what is happening.
We have to tackle immigration, including illegal immigration, because it is not fair. The couple I am talking about are paying their taxes week in, week out. They expect to live in a nice street, and to benefit from the services that they pay for week in, week out. They do not expect to be called racist or xenophobic for saying, “We liked it as it was.” If we are going to have immigration, which I do not completely believe is a bad thing, it needs to be controlled, and that is what I was sent down here to do.
I am only here because of Brexit. The people of Doncaster have had enough. They wanted control of their borders, and I say to Ministers that unless we get control of our borders, I will not be coming back down here again. [Hon. Members: “Hurray!”] Members may cheer, but the people of Doncaster are not cheering. This is the first time they have had a Conservative MP to hold to account one of the socialist Labour councils that have been left to get away with murder for the last 60 years. It is absolutely atrocious.
I will back the Bill today, but I have friends on this side of the House who want it to be stronger, and I am going to work with them, and hopefully with Ministers, because we must make this work. We have to stop the boats: that is what the Prime Minister has said, and I will back him until we do. We must stop the boats.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I feel as if I have been sucked back in time to listen to Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech again. I represent a multicultural constituency containing many immigrants, many asylum seekers and many refugees, and I can tell the House that my constituents do not support the Bill. At the weekend, all sorts of people stopped me in the street to tell me that they hoped I would speak against it because they found it repugnant. Perhaps the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) needs to inform his constituents that the reason they live in the conditions he described, and the reason they have such low wages, is not immigration, but more than 10 years of Tory government.
What I intend to focus on is the law, not as a lefty lawyer but as someone who tries to do what lawyers are bound to do—look dispassionately at the law. Those who listen to the public debate about the Bill, in the media at any rate, could be forgiven for thinking that the debate about its legality was confined to the competing tribes within the Conservative party, but fortunately it is not. There are sources of advice independent of the Government and independent of their querulous Back Benchers, and it is on them that I want to focus.
This morning, the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights published a briefing based on the independent legal advice that has been given to the Committee. That independent legal advice is for the benefit of all Members of Parliament and peers, which is why it has been published. I have also had occasion to consider the briefing published by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law. They are both important, because the Government are trying to position themselves as having stopped short of breaching international law, but those independent briefings make it clear that they have not. The Bill undermines the principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers, which are supposedly central to the British constitution, as well as undermining various of our international obligations.
I commend to hon. Members a reading of the independent legal advice that has been given to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I will take a few highlights from it. Requiring the courts to conclude that Rwanda is safe, even though the evidence has been assessed by the UK’s highest courts to establish that it is not, is a remarkable thing for a piece of legislation to do. If the Government were so confident that Rwanda has suddenly become safe in the last month, as I said earlier, why pass this Bill at all?
Another point made in the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ legal analysis is that disapplying the Human Rights Act is very significant. If human rights protections are disapplied when they cause problems for a policy goal, they lose the fundamental and universal quality that characterises them, and that is arguably particularly the case when they are disapplied in respect of a particular group—in this case, migrants who have come to the UK without prior permission. In my own aside, I will just remind the House that history shows that when a country withdraws human rights from a particular group, it is on a particularly slippery slope.
The independent legal advice to the Joint Committee also makes it clear that, crucially, no matter what the legislation says, it can affect only domestic law. That was the point of my intervention on the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) earlier. As the Supreme Court explained only a month ago, the United Kingdom is prohibited from allowing refoulement under the refugee convention and the ECHR, as well as under the UN convention against torture and the international covenant on civil and political rights. Passing this Bill will not change the fact that we are signed up to those obligations in international law, and it will not change the fact that we are breaching our international legal obligations, so the Conservative Members—particularly the lawyers—who have convinced themselves that it is okay to go through the Lobby and vote for the Second Reading of this Bill tonight are simply wrong. If they look at the independent legal advice from the JCHR and the Bingham Centre on the Rule of Law, they will see that that is the case.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Is it not a fundamental problem with the Bill that so many people see it as punishing the exploited and not the exploiter? If the Government were serious about this issue, that is exactly what they would focus on.
Joanna Cherry
Indeed. It has been suggested by a number of speakers this afternoon that no alternatives to the Bill have been suggested, but alternatives have been suggested, including a serious attempt to break the model of the people smugglers and proper international co-operation. Unfortunately, because of Brexit and the Government’s attitude towards international law, the United Kingdom’s opportunities for international co-operation are becoming few and far between. People no longer trust us and we do not have the same avenues for international co-operation as we used to have. Creating safe and legal routes is the way to do it. That is what we used to have. People who are seeking asylum are not seeking asylum illegally; they come across the channel because they have no other way to seek asylum except by coming to this country, so we should create legal routes.
Joanna Cherry
I will in a moment.
I want to say something about how this Bill impinges on Scotland. Conservative Members talk about their mandate and about their constituents wanting this Bill. I want to make it clear that people in Scotland do not want it. This is not the approach that we want in Scotland. It is therefore particularly egregious that the Bill seeks to oust the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts in relation to such fundamental matters as human rights and the basic tenets of our constitution. Scotland’s system of civil justice is a devolved matter under the Scotland Act and therefore the preserve of the Scottish Parliament, yet I do not see any legislative consent motion being sought, despite the fact that the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts is being ousted. Perhaps even more importantly—and this is rather important to us Scots lawyers—the authority and privileges of the Court of Session, including its inherent supervisory jurisdiction, are protected by article XIX of the Treaty of Union, which includes the nobile officium of the Court of Session, a power that exists to give remedies where otherwise there would be none. That is arguably also threatened by this Bill.
I know the Government are not terribly interested in Scotland, but I wonder whether they have applied their mind to whether there should have been a legislative consent motion, and to whether this legislation is in breach of the Treaty of Union by ousting the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts. I see the Minister looking at his notes, and I would be particularly interested to hear him answer those points in his summing up.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, having been a solicitor for nearly 20 years. Every lawyer I met during those 20 years of my working life disagreed with every other lawyer on the issue in front of them. I can guarantee that a lawyer’s advice tends to be somewhat in line with their client’s instruction and the ends that their client wants, so Members may want to ponder the source of some of the legal advice that has been mentioned.
I have sat on the Justice Committee for four years, and I also sit on the Home Affairs Committee. I went on a trip to Calais with my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), who is no longer in his place, and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. We spoke to people on the beaches, and we saw what some may call France’s functioning asylum and immigration system, but that is not what I witnessed in the slightest.
Calais is effectively a waiting room with no resources, where people are directed to wait for a boat to come to the United Kingdom. We saw that immigrants are housed in tents, and they are treated in the most appalling manner. When the French authorities get fed up with them, they burn down their tents, physically attack them and throw them into the next area or field. The idea that we are an outlier in how we treat immigrants is for the birds.
Too often in this Chamber, as a number of my hon. and right hon. Friends have rightly said, we ignore the concerns of our constituents in order to pontificate about our moral and liberal conscience.
Lia Nici
Does my hon. Friend agree that France is supposed to be a safe country and that people have an option when they arrive in France, or in any other EU country, to claim asylum in that first safe country? When they make a decision to come over the channel, they make a decision to be illegal and to be involved with criminal gangs. Nobody is forcing them to do that.
James Daly
I agree with my hon. Friend. We have heard some blanket statements about immigration, but one of the curious things I found when speaking to people on the beaches was that the people seeking immigration to this country were all males, all single and all of a certain age. There were virtually no females in any of the places we were taken.
We are escaping both from what our constituents want and from the reality that motivates people. When I was in those camps, people told me, “We are told that the United Kingdom’s streets are paved with gold. When we go there, we are going to be provided with a lot of financial support through benefits and other things.” That is what is motivating the vast majority of these people to come to this country. Listening to Opposition Members, we would think that nobody in the world has that motivation to come here; that everyone is fleeing some type of persecution. That is utter nonsense.
Our constituents expect us, as a Government and as a Parliament, to put in place a suite of measures to address the problem happening in the channel. This Bill, as many of my hon. and right hon. Friends have said, is one of a number of measures being taken by this Government, on which they should be congratulated.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness said, although nobody seemed to pick up the point, the French authorities told us that a deterrent effect and policy—the Rwanda policy—is absolutely necessary. We saw, as did the French authorities, that when the policy was first announced, even though people were potentially coming over the channel, there was a drop in cases. The spike came only when it became clear that, through various legal means, the policy would not be taken forward.
Not only do the French authorities think we need a deterrent, and not only are countries such as Germany, the United States, Italy and Austria all saying that they need some type of policy and they need to follow the UK’s lead, but it is what our constituents want. We cannot have a situation where we cannot house people, where people cannot get a doctor’s appointment and where people cannot afford a house. That may be acceptable to Opposition Members, but we cannot have a situation where we have 10,000 foreign national offenders in our prison system. We have to take measures that reflect the will of the people, not the will of middle-class, liberal consciences. I sometimes feel it is more important for some to moralise than actually be concerned about what motivates their constituents and what we should be doing in this place.
I have heard two objections to the Bill, one of which relates to rule 39 injunctions. I wish to ask the Minister about that, because I agree completely with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox) said. May I ask the Minister to comment on the Government’s legal advice? I say that because, technically, the Government can ignore rule 39 injunctions; that is what the Bill states, although he may be able to tell me something different. I think that is an important part of the Bill and I would be grateful if he would comment on it.
I respect every contribution made by a Conservative Member, but I cannot believe that anyone thinks—I have certainly not read any legal advice that thinks this—that we should exclude the right of appeal or, in extreme circumstances, the right to challenge whether someone should be taken to a foreign country. There must be such circumstances. Even the star chamber advice says that there must be at least form of allowance in respect of that. The legal test that the Government have put in place, whereby somebody must show “compelling evidence” that they would suffer “serious and irreversible harm”, is a strong one. It will address, both legally and practically, everything that our constituents want us to do.
This is a good policy—one that the Government have worked hard to refine. It is within the bounds of international law and of what this Government have undertaken to the country, which is to tackle illegal migration and stop the boats crossing the channel.
Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)
I am grateful to a priest in my constituency for recently bringing to my attention the film “A Man for all Seasons”, which I confess I had never seen. A quote from it is very relevant today:
“Some men think the earth is round, others think it flat. It is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it?”
The proposition before us today asks us to accept that Government can simply define “facts” as facts, even if they are not so. The attempt to bend our entire legal system to fit the will of Government is a high price to pay for some meagre political cover for a party that promised to deal with this genuine issue—Members from across the House would agree that it is that—and has singly failed to do so. We see, as we have seen in the past five and a half hours, the Prime Minister appeasing his right flank with promises of amendments later in order to bring some people on side, while others are debating how those very amendments would pull them away from supporting the Bill. A complete mess is playing out before us.
What a distance this Tory party has come. Its former leader, now brought back from the wilderness as Lord Cameron, said only a decade ago:
“I believe that immigration has brought significant benefits to Britain...this is our island story: open, diverse and welcoming, and I am immensely proud of it-”
From that, we get to the repugnant rhetoric of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), in one of the most appalling speeches I have ever heard—he is not in his place, but his was a shameful speech; to the spectacle of the Immigration Minister resigning from his post, not in protest at the Government’s novel policy, but because it does not go far enough; and to speech after speech by Government Members criticising the Bill, but then saying they are going to support it.
Perhaps more important than any of the legal challenges is the moral case for why the Bill must be blocked. I take issue with the idea that we should not think about the morality of these issues. We talk about planes, boats, targets and backlogs, and forget the human beings who are seeking shelter and a better life. The Home Office’s own statistics show that at least six out of 10 of those who made the dangerous channel crossing will be recognised as refugees through the asylum process. Given that many are fleeing extreme situations to embark on one of the most dangerous routes possible, how can the Bill possibly stand as any kind of deterrent?
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that those who support refugees in our country deserve our respect and should be commended by the House for their excellent work in local communities up and down this land?
Michael Shanks
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Over decades, immigrants have contributed so much to the country that we enjoy today, not least to our public services, and we should give them immense thanks.
Instead of thinking of other solutions to deal with the criminal gangs that are causing such misery and death as they smuggle people across the channel, the Government have decided to hold firm to a course of action that has already cost us hundreds of millions of pounds and, as we have heard throughout the debate, will cost us even more. Instead of challenging the criminal gangs at source and building better co-operation with our European neighbours to tackle them, we have a Government fixated on a plan that the Home Secretary himself does not seem to be particularly convinced by. And for what? For a law that is unlikely to succeed in even the aims it has put forward.
The assumption made in the Bill is not that Rwanda is a safe country but that all decision makers must treat it as such. In other words, they have to put aside any reality they may know and accept that Rwanda is a safe country for the purposes of decision making. There will be neither recourse to appeal on the basis that someone removed to Rwanda may be sent to another country, even if it could be demonstrated that that was a genuine possibility, nor recourse to appeal on the basis that a person may not receive fair consideration of their asylum claim, because the Government have decided that these things are all safe.
The provisions mean that only in exceptional personal circumstances would an individual have a means of legally challenging the decision. It is a deeply unsettling proposition that the Government are removing one of the key components of constitutional democracy—the right of any citizen to test any law in an independent court. Never could that be more important than on an issue of human rights.
The question of parliamentary sovereignty has already been clarified. Lord Hope stated:
“Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute. It is no longer right to say that its freedom to legislate admits of no qualification whatever.”
The Bill leaves open the possibility of individual challenge to the ECHR and, as we heard from a number of Members, we might be back here, a few months from now, discussing that very issue as the Government seek to withdraw us from the ECHR.
Until a few months ago, I was in the classroom teaching pupils how to identify truth from sources of information, among other things. We told young people that there is such a thing as objective truth, and yet here I am, in the so-called mother of Parliaments, faced with a morally reprehensible and legally questionable farce—a charade that even most of those who will, I suspect, eventually be persuaded to walk through the Aye Lobby do not actually endorse. At the heart of the issue is the idea that a Government can simply state what is true, even if the evidence points the other way. It is for this House to challenge the Government’s shoddy attempt to do that and to do the right thing by voting down the Bill.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
I will start by looking at the foundation and principles of the Bill. It is worth remembering that it tries to do what our constituents want us to do. That is not a bad start for any Bill on Second Reading. I knock on doors week in, week out, and I have spoken to hundreds, if not thousands, of my constituents over the past few years. Without question, the single most common issue raised in those conversations is illegal migration, so we in this place owe them an absolute duty to do our very best to deliver on their wishes to produce an effective control on migration and illegal migration. That is what this Bill intends to do: to provide an effective deterrent that breaks the business model and that will lead to stopping the boats. However, it will not do so by itself. This is not an isolated policy; it is part of a whole suite of policies that this Government, to their enormous credit, have introduced over the past years and that are already bearing fruit. We have seen this year crossings by small boats down by a third—I think it is slightly over a third—at a time when they are going up by a third in Europe as a whole and up by 80% in the Mediterranean countries.
Therefore, the schemes that the Government have already implemented are working. They include bilateral agreements with countries such as Albania, a dedication of a safe country status, which is not novel to this Bill. That has had an immediate deterrent effect. It is not that everyone who comes to this country has then been immediately deported to Albania—that has not been the deterrent effect. It is the fact that people know that they will be deported that they have stopped coming in the first place. Crossings by Albanians have dropped by more than 90%. That is why Rwanda is so important. It is not that the capacity of Rwanda has to accept every single migrant who currently comes across the channel; it is the deterrent effect to stop them coming in the first place. We have seen it work, so why not follow the evidence?
We also have the upstream destruction of equipment. As I understand it, just last week there was a Bulgarian seizure of boats, engines and engine parts, preventing the ability of people to cross the channel. There is also increased co-operation with France, which I wholeheartedly welcome, as it has led to increased patrols and increased interdiction of attempts to cross the channel—although not all of them. There has been a 70% increase of raids on illegal employment in this country, and an enormous increase, which I very much welcome, in the number of claims handlers to speed up the process of assessment, bringing down the backlog from 90,000 to below 20,000 now.
The Rwanda Bill is important, but it is just one tool of many. Let us be clear about what the real dispute is in this Chamber today. It is not about the intentions of those on the Government Benches, as we are united in wanting an effective policy for Rwanda. Where the real dispute is—[Interruption.] Yes, every single Member on the Government Benches are entirely united in that objective; it is how we get there that we are debating.
While we want an effective deterrent, those on the Opposition Benches do not. Labour and the Liberal Democrats do not want an effective deterrent. They want to scrap it. Even if the Rwanda policy is demonstrated to be working, they have committed to replacing it. We want flights to take off to Rwanda, as do our constituents. Opposition Members want to prevent them. We want to restore control over our asylum processes, but Labour and the Liberal Democrats say that the only policy is to hire more staff—“Hire another 100,000; have safe and legal routes.” That is important, I accept, but it does not answer the question of how many people come over in the safe and legal routes.
We can have a process that welcomes everyone, but the UN tells us that there are 108 million people in the world at the moment who have been displaced by violence from their own country. Safe and legal routes is a great cliché, a great strap line, but it does not solve the problem of control of our borders.
This Bill responds to the Supreme Court judgment. It does not say that black is white. It does not say that the risk of refoulement then was a false decision by the Lords. The Bill solves the problem by an international treaty, preventing refoulement, and that, in the rare occasions where Rwanda may wish to export people to a third country, they come back to the UK. That is sensible. That is not going against the Supreme Court; it is respecting its judgment and solving the problems that the Supreme Court judges raised in their judgment, and I wholeheartedly support this Second Reading.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
There have been some absurd and ridiculous Bills presented to this Parliament in the course of the past few centuries that it has been in existence, but it would be hard to find a Bill that is more absurd and ridiculous than this one. It is a Bill that wills something to be just because it wants it to be, and asks us to ignore reality and experience because it decrees it. That is just about as absurd and ridiculous as you can get. It takes some imagination to concoct something as comedically callous as this Bill. It would take a particularly warped mind to think that this type of rendition is a solution to anything, far less a sensitive and complex immigration problem.
It has been totally dispiriting to listen to some of the contributions from hon. Gentlemen and Ladies on the Conservative Benches—the dehumanising language, the talk of invasions and culture wars, treating people as commodities to be dealt with, and as scourges to be legalled away. I will single out two speeches that I think were utterly appalling: the disgraceful speech from the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher); followed closely by the speech from the former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick).
But have the Rwandans not played an absolute blinder? They must have seen this Government coming from thousands of miles away. They have solicited hundreds of millions of pounds from them, and apparently they will get another £100 million more. They have done all that without taking one single deportee. I say, “Go Rwanda! You have made utter mugs of this chaotic Government.”
Nobody has won from this Bill other than Rwanda—certainly not the wretched people who will be subject to this ongoing problem and will be getting on the boats, at the mercy of all the dreadful people who smuggle them across the channel. This Bill will do nothing to disincentivise them. If they are prepared to risk their life to come across the channel, why would they concern themselves with the infinitesimal chance that they might be rendered to Rwanda? It just does not make sense.
This Bill certainly has not helped the Government, has it? I do not know whether they will win this vote tonight—apparently it is still in the balance, if that is news for colleagues on the Conservative Benches. I think the Government might just about have got it, but apparently it is still in the balance. Look at the list of all the different groups we have. We have the One Nation Conservatives, the European Research Group, the New Conservatives, the Common Sense Group—I would love to go to one of their meetings—the Northern Research Group, the No Turning Back group and the Conservative Growth Group. That is a group of factions that would make the People’s Front of Judea look like a model of unity and political consensus. This might be the very Bill that brings down this Conservative Government, and what a hill to die on—an obsession with immigration and with stopping the small boats. By God, they deserve to be brought down, if this is the Bill that will determine that.
Here is a novel idea: why do we not start to consider immigration as some sort of opportunity, a potential boost to our society and communities? Why do we not design safe and secure means to harness international talent as they seek to flee conflict and carnage in their own countries? We live in a world where the movement of people has never been so far-reaching and profound. One thing the right hon. Member for Newark got right is that that is going to be an ongoing feature of the international community. It will be something that we will have to deal with not just this decade, but for the rest of the century. Can we not be imaginative about solutions? Can we not look to see whether there are benefits to having people who were the cream of their countries coming to this nation? Instead, we are all about closing borders, stopping people coming here and making life as miserable as possible for the poor souls who manage to end up on our shores.
I am just pleased that this Bill is not in my name. It is not in the name of the people of Scotland. If we ever were in control of our immigration policy, everything that the Conservatives are proposing and presenting is the exact opposite of what we would do. Scotland rejects this Bill. My constituents want nothing to do with it. I will proudly and defiantly be voting against it this evening in the name of the people I represent, and I know that I will be joined by my colleagues. What a disgraceful Bill. What an appalling piece of legislation. It deserves to be shoved right in the furthest bin in the furthest corner of this country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I advise colleagues that the winding-up speeches will begin at 6.30 pm.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is somewhat comical to get a lecture on unity and financial probity from the Scottish National party, to say the least—[Interruption.] Well, if we really want something comical.
I particularly welcome this Bill because it was me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and the current Minister for Legal Migration and Delivery, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), who were the original architects of the Rwanda plan.
A lot of that is because we in this country face challenges that other countries in Europe face—namely that, even if we turn down someone’s asylum claim, there are countries that we would struggle to return them to. There are countries around the world with Governments that we would not wish to deal with, for example, or countries that refuse point-blank, as a matter of policy, to accept enforced immigration returns. In fact, we even struggle to deport criminals back to some countries not necessarily because of concerns about those countries, but because of the domestic policies that they adopt. As was touched on by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), we cannot just drop people off; we need to get permission to do so.
Similarly, if we cannot get a returns agreement with the safe and democratic third country that someone has just left, we need to look for alternatives. That is where looking to Rwanda came in. Rwanda is a specialist in refugee resettlement. Someone listening to comments from the Opposition would never know that there are 130,000 refugees in Rwanda and that the UNHCR relocates people there. That shows that Rwanda is a specialist in that area, and it is one of the reasons we worked with it.
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling was based not on the idea that Rwanda was inherently unsafe, or that if someone went to Rwanda they would actually be in danger there, but on the potential for refoulement elsewhere. I expect that many of the people who cite the Supreme Court judgment did not bother to listen to it. It is important to consider what the Bill is based on and what has changed since the judgment to allow Parliament to take a different view from that of the Supreme Court justices. Not only is Parliament entitled to do that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox) rightly pointed out, but we do so on the basis that there is now a treaty that directly addresses those points.
The Bill ratifies that treaty and makes it part of international law. It guarantees against a person being transferred on further when they have been transferred from this country to Rwanda, in order to meet their protection needs. That is the absolute core of what has changed since the Supreme Court judgment. It is why Parliament is now entitled to take the opinion—based on assurances that will be upgraded into international law by our treaty, and on the clear assurances against refoulement to a third country where someone may face persecution—that Rwanda is safe for the people transferred there.
That is why the Bill needs to pass its Second Reading. There are clearly points of detail that we can explore in Committee. The Minister for Legal Migration and Delivery and the Minister for Illegal Migration, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), for whom I have huge respect, will know my thoughts. Where will the evidence threshold be for the clause 4 provisions? Given my right hon. and learned Friend’s former role as Solicitor General and his direct experience before the courts, it would be particularly interesting to hear where he believes the courts may draw the line for interim relief. One reason interim relief is always important is that, in many cases, although a lot of the challenges thrown up at the last minute usually fail in the end, they are used to frustrate the flights. When I used to deal with the Jamaica flights, for example, we could only have so many a year, so people knew that if they could get themselves off that flight, it would be some time before there was another, if even their claim ultimately failed.
There is a wider debate to have about the refugee system. There is a debate to have about how the current law and international practice work. We have had examples of people who have lived lawfully in the European Union for a number of years with a visa, and then come to the UK and claim a protection need. Well, if they had been living in a safe and democratic European country, what was their real protection need to leave that country, particularly if they had the lawful right to be there? Those are not debates that we can settle today. What we have before us is a Bill that allows us to take forward part of our plan to tackle the issue of illegal migration. That is why we need to ensure that it passes Second Reading.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
We have heard the sounds of optimism over truth coming from the Conservatives. The idea that the measure is a deterrent has not yet been proven, yet it has been cited as if it is actively deterring people from arriving in boats. We all know that the boats are a challenge. They are a real problem; people are dying in the channel. But let us be clear: the Government were the architects of this policy, and it is the second time they have legislated on it. Its architects have stood up, including the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) just now, and said how proud they are that they drew up the policy. But they drew it up so badly that they are having to revisit the legislation. I think they should be a bit less proud. Even though I do not agree with the policy, proper policy making means ensuring a policy works before announcing it. There are so many flaws in this scheme that the Government are struggling along, believing that a headline and a pledge that it will deter people is enough. That is not good policy making.
We on the Labour Benches have often been challenged on what we would do differently. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and I were on the frontline dealing with immigration matters during the last Labour Government, and my right hon. Friend was the architect of a system that meant that one person was being returned every eight minutes. I have people in my constituency who have reached the end of the line, and they know it. They come to me and we talk about voluntary return, but it is difficult to do that when the Home Office does not return those people’s documents and they have all these problems. These are people who actively want to leave because they know that is their only option, but they cannot do so.
This Government must look much more closely at the existing system and how it is working. It has been 13 years of downgrading the asylum system and the immigration system generally, and now all these extra people have gone into dealing with the backlog of asylum cases—there are 20,000 legacy cases still left. Was 13 December the day on which the Prime Minister said that number would reach zero? He has missed that target, and 160,000 people have been backing up in the asylum system. People in my constituency, including a top surgeon, those coming in on work permits and those on student visas, are all behind in the queue because all the Home Office’s effort is going into the Prime Minister’s pledge to deal with the backlog, which is just creating more chaos in the entire system. That approach is not working.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) touched on the question of money, and of course, we on the Public Accounts Committee have been trying to look at the money on this issue. I will not go through the figures, because my right hon. Friend has already set them out, but this is a five-year plan, and we have no figures for how much money will go to Rwanda in years four and five. My right hon. Friend and I, along with the other members of the Public Accounts Committee, asked the permanent secretary that question yesterday, but he was not forthcoming on that figure. He only released a figure to us when it was leaked to the International Monetary Fund—an investigation is happening into why that was. That is a ridiculous way of releasing figures. It is not normal parliamentary protocol to release information about major projects in the annual report and accounts, especially when we are voting on them in this House.
For the benefit of colleagues who may not follow the annual accounts of Departments with the same enthusiasm as members of the Public Accounts Committee, the accounts for the financial year we are in will be published to Parliament in July next year, 15 months after the £100 million was allocated this year. That is not scrutiny. In other areas and for other projects—I look to the Minister to answer on this point, or take it back to the Home Secretary—we get updates to the House every six months, or even more frequently, through Committees or laid before the House. That is not uncommon, yet the Minister’s permanent secretary was saying that it is normal to provide updates just through the accounts. We need more scrutiny of this issue: if it is a flagship Government policy, there is nothing to hide, so let us see those figures. The Public Accounts Committee and the Home Affairs Committee will work together on that issue—it is really important that we do that.
We need to tackle the backlog and we need transparency on the numbers, and I would be also be grateful if the Minister clarified whether any conditions are attached to the money going to Rwanda. We got a useful breakdown from the permanent secretary in Committee yesterday—I will not repeat it, but it is on the record from yesterday’s Committee meeting—but is there anything that it would be out of order for the Rwandans to spend that money on? It has been spent on reasonable things such as education, health and so on, but is there anything on which the Rwandans cannot spend the money that is given to them by the UK? It would be very helpful to know that.
There was also an expression of interest for a contract for Manston and Western Jet Foil. That is a £700 million contract for the first six years, which could extend to be worth £1.16 billion over 10 years. The money is intended to improve those reception centres, which definitely need improving, but according to that pre-tender document, the facilities are expected to be active between 2030 and 2034. I am a bit puzzled: £700 million is being invested in Manston and Western Jet Foil, and although that may be necessary, we have been told all afternoon—I have been here for five and a half hours—that the Rwanda policy is already deterring people. If it is working so well, why do we need to invest that much money in those facilities? They need the investment, but it seems to me that the Government are trying to have it both ways. I would welcome clarity from the Minister.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I will support the Bill this evening, because it is a fundamental right that a country must be able to protect its borders. As a basic requirement, it should know who is entering the country, even more so if they are trying to do so illegally. I support the Bill because we simply cannot rest on our laurels with the current action we have taken, as positive as that already is.
As we have heard this afternoon, across Europe major countries have seen illegal migration rising, with Mediterranean crossings 80% up, yet thanks to the steps we have taken in this country, our numbers are down by a third. People cite the figure of a third over and over again, but what does it mean? The number is approximately 17,000 people down on where it was last year, and that is way down on the forecasts that were expecting it potentially to be double the number last year. However, reducing the figure and being happy with 29,000 people this year is not stopping the problem.
Stopping people being put on boats and trying to enter the country illegally requires a multifaceted approach. Return agreements have worked, putting our Border Force into French control rooms has worked and trying to dry up the supply of rubber boats has worked, but there must be a deterrent as well. It is simply another piece of the jigsaw, and it comes on top of all the other measures we are using. Those who seem not to be able to understand why we need that deterrent should look at the situation not through the lens of the tens of thousands we have seen this year but at migration around the world and where it is going. If we do not tackle it with a strong working deterrent, we will see not tens of thousands of people trying to cross into the country, but hundreds of thousands, and that is the forecast we are being shown year after year.
The Government’s official release yesterday was the most startling statistic I have read yet. It estimates that if illegal immigration goes unaddressed, the costs of asylum accommodation alone could increase to £32 million per day by 2026, which is equivalent to £11 billion a year. Imagine how that £11 billion a year could be used on our public services. The Government are absolutely right to use every power they have at their disposal to prevent and deter unlawful migration. To the people who say that we have spent an unbelievable amount of money already—£250 million—in trying to get the scheme up and running, I reply that that figure pales into insignificance when we put it in the context of that £11 billion a year. Our NHS, our housing provision and our welfare state—indeed, all our public services—simply cannot take unsustainable levels of illegal migration.
I am not a lawyer, and there are all manner of opinions on whether the scheme will work, but my answer is that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. As has been said, it may not stop every legal challenge—that is fair enough, because some of those will be valid—and it does not have to do so. What it needs to be is a deterrent to help to slow down and stop the numbers that are coming. Despite the commentary on the Bill, it contains plenty to counter the spurious reasons given for not sending people seeking asylum to Rwanda. The UN and the EU have been sending refugees to Rwanda since 2019, so I find it extremely difficult to understand why people have accused Rwanda of not being a safe country. To have an optimal Bill, and one that is fair and that international partners will stand alongside, we must tread a fine line.
Plenty of times I have been told in this House that things will not happen and things will not work. We were told we would not get the numbers of boat crossings down, and we have reduced them by a third. Everybody said we would enter a recession; we did not enter a recession. Everybody said we would not halve inflation; we have halved inflation. This Government have done many things in the last year that we were told were simply unachievable, and we have achieved them, and that is why I will back this Bill tonight.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) compared the Home Secretary with Humpty Dumpty in “Alice in Wonderland”, who uses words to mean just what he chooses them to mean. I wonder if the Prime Minister could be compared with the Red Queen, who believed six impossible things before breakfast: that Brexit has been a success; that Britain is a soft-power superpower; that the Scottish Parliament is the most powerful wee devolved Assembly in the entire world; that we can reach net zero while abandoning net zero policies; that this Bill is actually going to stop irregular arrivals in the United Kingdom; and that his party is actually going to win the next election. Even for those on the Government Benches, that is too unbelievable. They do not think this Bill will work, and they do not think they will win the next election.
The Bill will not work, because it fails under the crushing weight of its own internal contradictions. Rwanda is deemed to be a safe country—desirable even, as a place for asylum seekers to be processed and to remain. The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) did not take my intervention earlier, but I wanted to ask her this: if Rwanda is such a desirable place to be deported to, why on earth should deportation there be a deterrent? How will that have a deterrent effect, if the Government are saying, “This is a wonderful, safe and secure place for you to go”? Perhaps more people will come to the United Kingdom in the hope of being sent to Rwanda.
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman must recognise that Rwanda has successfully resettled more than 130,000 people, and that is through international institutions and norms.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I must ask the hon. Gentleman to keep within the five minutes, although he has taken an intervention.
Patrick Grady
I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think I just heard the former Home Secretary encouraging more people to come to the United Kingdom so that they can be settled in Rwanda.
The UK Government say that the republic of Rwanda is to be trusted to fulfil its obligations under the Rwanda treaty because the treaty is binding under customary international law, but the same Bill grants the UK Government derogations from that corpus of international law and instruct the courts to ignore it. The Bill is supposed to slash costs to the taxpayer from housing asylum seekers in UK hotels, but the Government have already paid Rwanda hundreds of millions of pounds without a single flight taking off.
The price for this performative, weak Bill is a weakening of the courts and judicial system, a weakening of the UK’s standing in the world and a weakening of the entire system of international law, because if it is okay for the UK Government to derogate from its international obligations and commitments when it suits, how can the UK object to other countries—Russia, China or anywhere else for that matter—when they flout the rule of international law?
The Bill is supposed to be an assertion of parliamentary sovereignty, as if Parliament simply asserting particular statements makes them true. To pick up on the theme from the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Michael Shanks), perhaps the Prime Minister should have simply brought forward a Flat Earth Bill to assert that the Earth is flat and the Home Office is empowered to simply push people and unwanted asylum seekers off the edge of it and into the cold vastness of space. It might come as a surprise and perhaps even a disappointment to some elements on the Conservative Back Benches, but the Earth is not flat. The Earth is round, and if they keep pushing people in one direction, eventually they will come back to them.
It is important in all of this to be clear that despite our debating the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, little of this debate is actually about the safety of Rwanda. In 2018, I had the privilege of visiting Rwanda with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. It is a beautiful country with huge potential, and the people there have had to live through horrors and overcome unimaginable difficulties. For wealthy tourists and those who fly in to go on safari and stay in nice hotels, Rwanda is indeed a safe and welcoming country. However, citizens who speak up too loudly with questions about the regime, or who perhaps ask why international observers have been unable to report that presidential elections have been free or fair, or who perhaps belong to the LGBT+ community in that country—or, indeed, Rwandan citizens living in London under the protection of the Metropolitan police because they are being stalked by their own country’s intelligence services—might not find it as safe and welcoming. Whatever the Bill might say, the UK Supreme Court has made a finding of fact that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda are at risk of refoulement. Simply saying that they are not does not change that fact.
The question of the safety of Rwanda is a distraction. The very principle or idea of forcing people to move to any other country against their will should be enough to oppose the Government’s policies. People seeking asylum have chosen to come here to the United Kingdom for good reason—perhaps because they have friends or family or perhaps simply because they speak the language. If someone has chosen to seek asylum here, they should be assessed here, and if their claim is valid, they should be allowed to remain. If their claim is not valid then by definition it ought to be safe to return them to their country of origin.
Perhaps the most remarkable thing is that this time last week, this Bill did not even exist. In less than seven days, the Prime Minister has brought himself, and possibly his Government and party, to a crisis point entirely of their own making. It is a Bill that nobody wants and nobody likes. It is another creaking internal Conservative contradiction. It is too extreme for the mainstream of the party, and not extreme enough for the red wallers, the ERG and the Maastricht rebels, who simply cannot get enough of the sweet dopamine hit that comes with rebelling against the party and getting invited on to all kinds of podcasts. Some of them have been at it since the 1990s, and they just have to keep getting more extreme in their rebellions to achieve the same hit.
Scotland wants none of it, as I hear from my constituents in Glasgow North and the constituents who are refugees, who want to play a full and active part in our society and economy. If the Government want Bills that will change the reality of the situation, they can devolve the power over immigration to the Scottish Parliament, or they can give us the chance to choose a better, fairer future that respects human rights and global citizenship by becoming an independent country in a referendum.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I would say it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), who served with me on the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, but he rehashed quite a lot of what has been said from the Opposition Benches, with various misunderstandings and inaccuracies. He had his moment of fun trying to describe different groups of colleagues on the Government Benches, but let me pull him back to something that he will recognise, as I think all colleagues in the House will.
I recently had a conversation with a distinguished recently retired UN senior official who was previously the British ambassador in several countries in Africa. He not only painted for me, but described for me factually the statistical possibilities of what is going on in that great continent at the moment. He described vividly the combination of civil wars, mismanagement, instability, insecurity, climate change challenges and food shortages that are affecting millions of people in Africa. Of course, we know that has added to the incredible level of insecurity in the middle east and, indeed, further east from there.
All of this amounts to one of the great challenges for democracy in our time. We are dealing with a huge issue that will get bigger, and we are all going to be stretched in our answers to those challenges. It is not just us in the United Kingdom; as we know, there are issues in the Netherlands, Hungary, Italy, France, Denmark—you name it, all our European neighbours are wrestling with similar challenges. Therefore, it is simply not enough for Opposition Members to point at various things that they do not like about this Bill without really considering what a constructive alternative might look like.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) said earlier that immigration should be looked at as an opportunity to be seized, not a problem to be managed. He is partly right, but he would be more convincing if county after county in Scotland were taking more asylum seekers and putting up their hands to the Government of the United Kingdom in order to take more, because the truth is that it is a challenge to be managed.
We need a practical response, because we do not outsource immigration to people smugglers. The point of stopping the boats, and the point of the Bill, is to play a trailblazing role, not just for us but for other countries. On balance, I believe that we will see more such agreements, and that this will not be the only one. While I have always taken the view that none of us can be sure that the Rwanda scheme will work in terms of the number of asylum seekers who will transfer to Kigali, we should keep an open mind and not assume, to quote Labour’s amendment, that the Bill
“will not work to tackle people smuggling gangs, end small boat crossings or achieve the core purposes of the Bill…whilst applying to less than one per cent of those who claim asylum”.
That is fundamentally wrong, and we can show so in a number of different ways.
First, will the Bill actually act as a deterrent? Migration Watch says it will be a powerful deterrent if illegal migrants are swiftly and continually sent to Rwanda. How many would we be able to send? The Rwandan spokesperson said himself only a few days ago that the country is
“ready, and willing, to take in as many people as the UK is able to send”.
All those Opposition Members talked about 100 or 200 people going there, but that is not at all the potential of the scheme. As other people have mentioned, Rwanda is already hosting 130,000 asylum seekers and the UNHCR has 1,700 Libyans there, so clearly the numbers are not the fundamental issue with the proposal.
We have had a lot of red-herring soundbites—“can’t work”, “won’t work”, “unprecedented”—but there are precedents. In fact, the Labour party knows that better than anyone, because in 2001 the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), was in a very similar position in not being able to confirm to the ECHR that the Government were necessarily compliant in a proposal that she was putting forward. We know that the Blair Government talked to Tanzania about something similar; in fact, the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 built on the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. So there are precedents and reasons to believe that the Bill might work. It will be awkward, and it is an issue that we and many other Governments will have to tackle, but the most important thing is that we get behind the Bill and see it through safely.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Rwanda is not a safe country. This country is using the Bill as a distraction from the Government’s failure to sort out the immigration backlog. Millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are being spent on hotels every day. Hundreds of millions have been spent on this fantasy Rwanda policy without a single person being sent there. That money would be better spent sorting out the backlog and getting people processed.
Immigration policies are already in place, but they are not being enforced. The Home Office is working too slowly, as it has previously with passports. Processing claims quicker is the best way to free up hotels. In the past decade, the backlog of asylum claims has risen four times faster than the number claiming asylum. This is ultimately a crisis of the Government’s own making, and it has been years in the making. The system is failing and it needs fixing.
This country needs a solution to the crisis, not a distraction. The Bill claims that Rwanda is a safe country, because the Bill says that is so. That is not the type of country that Britain is. We are not like that. We believe in the rule of law and obligations under international laws and treaties. The Rwandan Government have been involved in many questionable events across Africa, including the kidnapping and beating of dissidents abroad. The Rwanda policy is an attempt by the Government to look tough and to distract the country from the sorry state they have got us into. Even on the off-chance that flights to Rwanda take off, they will deal with less than 1% of asylum claims. It is a Tory vanity project. It will not solve any problem. As a country, we are better than this.
Labour’s plan to tackle the criminal gangs directly with a cross-border police unit and to clear the backlog is the only way to stop the small boats. Vanity projects for headlines are not befitting of such a serious issue. The Government should go back to the drawing board—I bet we will be here in a few months or a year.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
There are sometimes advantages to being the last speaker. Because the previous speech was a little shorter, I shall lift the time limit, as long as Claire Hanna sits down at 6.30 pm.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has been a long day and a long debate. Perhaps the Government could legislate for a few extra hours for us all. That would not be out of place with this mind-bending Bill from a Government who continue to prioritise prejudice over objective reality.
The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) purported to speak for my constituency of South Belfast, which does indeed have a relatively large proportion—I think it is the largest population per head—of the UK’s asylum seekers. Our schools, churches and community groups are trying valiantly to support people whom the Home Office has left in hotels for many months at a time.
Like me, those constituents have moral and practical objections to the Bill. Their moral objections are to the language used to frame and justify it and to the demonisation of those who seek international protection in the UK, who have little or no opportunity to secure that before they travel. Equally, they have practical objections to the Bill, because they know that it will not work. They know that there is no evidence that the deterrent works—a fact that was confirmed by the permanent secretary—and they know that it relies on a simplification by this Government that applies only if people have never met or spoken to an asylum seeker. The cost of this gimmick is running into the hundreds of millions of pounds—money that should have been used to end the chaos of processing in the Home Office or to go after the people traffickers instead of bettering their market by closing off safe routes.
No one is saying that the UK can or should take everyone who requires sanctuary for reasons of conflict, prejudice or climate. Everyone in the Chamber knows, no matter what they say in their tweets, that only a fraction of people try to get here. No one is saying that the UK should not take legal steps to deter erroneous claims. The Minister has spoken about fruitful engagement with Albania, and hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches have set out numerous constructive proposals, including swifter processing and justice and, crucially, modern and mature engagement with neighbouring countries.
It is impossible to view the Bill outside two core dynamics. The first is the UK’s recent disregard of international law—a rules-based order that it proudly shaped. The second is the overall irrational opposition to migration, including regular migration. People often say, “You can’t even talk about immigration.” We absolutely can, but we must be prepared to be honest about it and to trade in more than just Twitter memes. We must be prepared to talk about how the national health service and social care would collapse without it. We must be honest about the net positive impact on GDP, and about the poor political decisions about how we spend those gains that have left public services in the mess that they are. We must be honest about our higher education model and the higher fees that students from these areas and countries would face if we did not have overseas students. We must be honest about how it is anti-family to tell UK citizens that they cannot fall in love with someone from another country and marry them unless they are among the top 25% of earners.
Of course we can talk about immigration. I am happy to talk about it, and I am happy to tell the House that Northern Ireland has an immigration problem. Young people are leaving our region to make their lives elsewhere because they feel stifled and limited by the politics of our region, by intolerance, by prejudice and by refusal to accept difference. Britain risks losing its vibrancy and talent if it goes further down this path—a path that I am glad to say the mainstream of British politics has honourably resisted, mostly, until now. Ireland, north or south, is not immune to these currents, as the street disorder in Dublin a few weeks ago showed, but we are a nation of people who have been the source of immigration for many centuries: you do not get to be Irish and racist. I am proud of the political leadership from across the spectrum against far-right agitation in Dublin in recent weeks.
I want briefly to address the applicability of the Bill in Northern Ireland. Human rights exist precisely to protect people from the type of politics that are behind the Bill. Human rights frameworks exist to stop politicians degrading shared values for their narrow political interest. The protection of rights for everyone from all communities in Northern Ireland, under article 2 of the Windsor framework, has been welcomed across civil society. Even the UK Government have called article 2 uncontroversial.
Not for the first time, I say thank goodness for the Good Friday agreement, which has been a lifeboat for our region given some of the terrible, damaging politics of recent years. That is a large part of why so many people—including in this Chamber—desperately tried to undermine the agreement through Brexit. Thanks to the agreement, which the international community prevented this Government from trashing under their previous two Prime Ministers, we continue to enjoy—in theory—rights and protections that this Government are so determined to burn for people in England, Scotland and Wales.
The existence of those rights has enraged the far right in Northern Ireland—a few voices who angrily prowl the internet, seeking to suffocate anything positive or humanitarian that happens in our region. They seem so desperate to strip legal rights away from everybody else; they would like to legally review themselves everything they cannot run away. They protest that this miserable Bill might not apply in Northern Ireland due to the Windsor framework. I regret to say that, in practice, immigration law has already been applied in Northern Ireland without differentiation, as will be heard in an upcoming challenge to the Illegal Migration Act.
We will oppose this Bill, and we will oppose other attempts to unite and balance the Conservative party on the backs of the most vulnerable. The Illegal Migration Act failed to do that, as did the Nationality and Borders Act. This is just red meat for a common-sense group with no common sense, a research group that does no research and a star chamber that has no stars. This Bill is for them and for no one else.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I rise to join the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), in supporting the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
I start by sending my condolences to the friends and family of the asylum seeker who tragically died while on the Bibby Stockholm this morning.
I thank all those across the House who have sent their condolences to me and my family over the past 10 days. We have been overwhelmed by the flood of tributes and messages, which have made us prouder than ever of what my mum was and all she achieved. It is very tempting to respond by taking a more conciliatory approach to this debate, but given the state of the legislation before us, and given everything that my mother stood for, I think she would be absolutely appalled that such a thought might ever cross my mind. So, let’s get stuck in, shall we?
First, I thank the House for an excellent debate. I express gratitude in particular to my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches, who spoke with such passion, logic and conviction. I also of course welcome the latest immigration Minister to his post, the Minister for Illegal Migration. I note that the performance of his predecessor led the Prime Minister to conclude that the job was too big for one Conservative Member alone, so they cut the position in two. Well, the more the merrier, I say. Welcome one and all!
When I began in this post two years ago, my first opposite number was fronting the Nationality and Borders Bill, which effectively handed each asylum seeker who crossed the channel a badge saying, “I am inadmissible for asylum” while making no provision for what practically could be done with those unprocessed claimants. They duly ended up in taxpayer-funded emergency hotels at the cost of £8 million a day. Next up was my second opposite number, with the Illegal Migration Bill. It was rushed through Parliament, yet not a single one of its core measures on detention and removal have been enacted. The Act is on the shelf, gathering dust. Now we have my third opposite number, who has well and truly taken one for the team by agreeing to introduce this utterly absurd piece of legislation, a Bill that his predecessor described as
“a further betrayal of Tory voters”.
The deckchairs have been rearranged, but the Titanic is still steaming towards the iceberg.
Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the Rwanda scheme is the story of its origin. Cast your mind back to April 2022, Madam Deputy Speaker. Boris Johnson was Prime Minister, and he was in the eye of the partygate storm, so he cooked up a cunning plan to rescue his premiership, which I believe became known as Operation Save Big Dog. And lo, the Rwanda scheme was born. Like every other scheme Mr Johnson has ever been associated with, it was extortionately expensive and doomed to fail. Yet here we are 18 months, two Prime Ministers, two Home Secretaries and three immigration Ministers later, and those on the Conservative Benches are still shackled to a policy that was only ever designed to be a diversion from a scandal. True to form, the Rwanda scheme is still being deployed as a skin-saving operation, the only difference being that it is the current Prime Minister who is desperately trying to cling to power by burnishing his Faragiste credentials to keep the circling vultures at bay. It really is déjà vu all over again.
I turn now to this new “Please, Please, Please Make Rwanda Safe Bill”, which is without doubt the most absurd piece of legislation I have ever seen. It does nothing at all to make Rwanda safe; it just asserts that Rwanda is safe and that our courts are not allowed to say otherwise. It argues that black is white and white is black; that the grass is blue and the sky is green. In the spirit of this legislation, I might try to introduce a Bill that deems that Wales actually won the rugby world cup recently.
Further still, the Rwandan Government are calling the shots. Having extracted £300 million from the British Government—today we think we heard £400 million—Mr Kagame is now instructing the Prime Minister not to do anything that might break international law. It really is quite extraordinary. How ironic that some on the Government Benches rail against our international legal obligations, yet seemed content to allow Kigali to dictate the terms of our asylum policies. So much for taking back control!
The upshot of this fiasco is that the Prime Minister has gone for a fudge. The Supreme Court judgment was his opportunity to stop flogging the dead horse that the Rwanda scheme has clearly become, but he has chosen not to take it. He is also not prepared to go with the full-fat option that some on the Government Benches are urging him to adopt. So, inevitably, his semi-skimmed formula satisfies no one, because, as everyone—from this side of the House to even the former Home Secretary —has said, it is destined to fail, both legally and in operational terms.
The fundamental contradictions at the heart of the Bill are also quite astonishing. First, the Home Secretary told us from the Dispatch Box last week that it complied with international law, but the very first page confirms that he is actually not sure that it does. Secondly, the Bill says that Rwanda is safe for refugees, but then also states that the Government might need to offer refuge to asylum seekers from—checks notes—Rwanda. Thirdly, the Bill is meant to be about preventing what the Government call “illegal migrants” from seeking sanctuary in the UK, but if one of those asylum seekers commits a crime in Rwanda, that person can be sent back to—checks notes again—the UK. Never mind Operation Save Big Dog. This Bill is Operation Dog’s Breakfast.
The Rwanda scheme is not only unlawful; it is also unaffordable and unworkable. First, let us give credit where credit is due. The Rwandan Government have played a blinder on this one, and they are laughing all the way to the bank. They really did see this Prime Minister coming. After all, £400 million with absolutely nothing in return, no questions asked, really is a sweet deal—although never let it be said that the Government have failed to get any flights off to Rwanda, because they absolutely have. They have proudly flown not one, not two, but three Home Secretaries to Kigali. I suppose we could say that so far it is £130 million per Home Secretary, which I am sure the British people will see as an excellent use of their taxes.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
As my hon. Friend will know, I worked for his father and my daughter worked for his mother. Does he think that all this is a façade for a form of international development? The Government do not like international development, so is this a way of targeting one country and giving it £140 million, or £200 million?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. He is right to suggest that the vast majority of people fleeing war and persecution end up in neighbouring countries in the region in which their plight is generated, and of course we need an overseas development programme that is focused and seeks, through enlightened self-interest, to ensure that we support those countries.
We are constantly told by Conservative Members that the Rwanda scheme will act as a deterrent, but that claim simply does not stand up to scrutiny, because Rwanda can take fewer than 1% of the asylum seekers who cross the channel in small boats. It is inconceivable that people who have already risked life and limb to get as far as northern France will be deterred by a 1% risk of anything. The Labour party has therefore been steadfast in our opposition to this madness from the very outset. We are absolutely committed to stopping the Tory boats chaos, but we will never vote for a madcap gimmick that is unaffordable, unworkable and unlawful.
We have constantly said that the Government need to redirect the money that is being squandered on this nonsense to a cross-border police unit, a new returns unit, and a security partnership with Europol that can stop the Tory boats chaos at source. We have also consistently called for the Government to speed up decision making and remove swiftly and safely the 30% of asylum seekers who fail to secure leave to remain. A small upfront investment in Labour’s plan would save the taxpayer an enormous £2 billion. Our reasoned amendment sets out why this Bill is a sham and what the Government should be doing instead, and I urge all Members across the House to get behind it. I trust that, in his concluding remarks, the Minister will confirm whether the Government will be accepting any significant amendments in Committee, because the House really deserves that clarity.
The Conservative party is no longer a serious party at all. It is a rabble, an alphabet soup of factions and cabals. The former Home Secretary is constantly on manoeuvres and the former Immigration Minister is firing broadsides on a daily basis. We have a Prime Minister who is so desperate to save his own skin that he apparently invited an outfit called the New Conservatives to No. 10 for breakfast this morning. The reality is that the Prime Minister was not actually at the table at all; he was on the menu, being consumed by the warring factions in his party and devoured by his own weakness and lack of judgment.
Our country simply cannot afford more of this chaos. We are in the midst of a cost of living crisis and our public services are crumbling, but we have a Conservative party that is at war with itself and completely incapable of governing. The good news is that the Prime Minister does have a way out of this mess: he can call a general election so that voters across this country can kick him and his shambolic Administration out of office and finally give our country the leadership that it needs and deserves.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the Minister, can I say once again how important it is for those who have contributed to the debate to get back in good time to hear the Opposition Front Bencher as well as the Minister, and not to be late?
The Minister for Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)
I first want to join the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), in sending my sincere condolences to the friends and family of the person who died on the Bibby Stockholm. May I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome to me? I have received warm messages of congratulation from many colleagues on both sides of the House on taking on this role, and I am sure that at least some of them were genuine and that they meant it.
I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), for his work in this role and personally. I should like to say, within the privacy of this Chamber, how sorry I was to see him resign, how I welcomed and respected the work that he has done in this role, and how I look forward to working constructively with him in the future. I agree with him that there is a disagreement between us, but it is a good faith disagreement. I also agree with his point about the need for legal certainty and I commit to working with him on that very point.
I want to take the central thrust of the Bill and tackle head-on the point that the hon. Member for Aberavon has made. The point of this Bill is to address the concerns that the Supreme Court set out on 15 November. It is right to say that I respect the judgment of the Supreme Court. Members would expect me to say nothing less as a former Law Officer. It is because we respect that judgment that we have looked at it so carefully and that we have responded not just with this Bill but with the internationally binding treaty that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary secured in Kigali last week. That seems to have escaped the notice of many Opposition Members. This Bill was subsequently tabled and we are debating it here on Second Reading. This builds on the memorandum of understanding that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) secured all those years ago. I will come back to her speech later; I was very grateful for her contribution.
I will now pick up some of the threads of the debate. We heard in some of the contributions what I would phrase as the moral case, or the compassionate case, for stopping the boats. We heard that it is a moral imperative to stop these modern-day slavers and smash these criminal gangs that are trying to push vulnerable people across the busiest shipping lane in the world, where people have lost their lives. On this side of the House, we are determined to take action. We are determined to smash the gangs and the modern-day slavery.
And some have raised the monetary cost, asking, “How much is this costing us?” I ask, what about the human cost? What about the human misery to which the slavers are driving people? There is nothing compassionate about an open-borders policy, and we have heard too much of that today and in previous weeks and months.
On the strength of the Bill and the legitimate concern, which many Conservative Members have raised, that spurious claims may be made—
Michael Tomlinson
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, specifically on the point about spurious claims.
Pete Wishart
Can the Minister tell the House how many people will be deported to Rwanda next year?
Michael Tomlinson
It will start off in the hundreds and scale up into the thousands. I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Whenever he speaks, I always think he has a smile behind the grimace and the stare. I always enjoy his speeches, and I always enjoy hearing him being heckled from this side of the House.
Conservative Members are anxious about spurious claims; about people asserting that they are unwell and unfit to fly, when the contrary is the case. Those who are making the crossing in small boats are not unwell; they are fit, young men. Some 84% of those making the crossings are male, and 77% of those are aged between 18 and 39. I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends when they say they want to make this work and make it legally tight. That is absolutely right, and I want to join them in that endeavour.
Sir William Cash
I wish to be a little formal about this. Will my hon. and learned Friend seek a ruling from Mr Speaker that the Bill’s long title and scope may be amended, to ensure that amendments may be tabled and selected, at least by the Government and even by Back Benchers, as on previous occasions?
Michael Tomlinson
I say directly to my hon. Friend that I will continue to work with him on this. I will come back to his specific points, and I hope I will address his very concern, perhaps in response to the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones).
My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham, my hon. Friends the Members for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and others spoke powerfully and directly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham rightly talked about the UNHCR and the EU. How galling it was to see that, the very day after the UNHCR advocated in the Supreme Court that Rwanda is not safe, the UNHCR itself sent 168 refugees to Rwanda as part of hundreds and thousands under a scheme that is already up and running, and supported and backed by the EU to the tune of millions of euros. We need to hear more of that, so I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) raised a specific point that I want to address head-on. This Bill will apply in full in Northern Ireland, in the same way that it applies in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is explicit, it is on the face of the Bill and will always be the case, reflecting that immigration policy is a UK-wide matter. I want to be particularly clear that nothing in the Windsor framework or the trade and co-operation agreement affects that. Where people have raised concern is on the rights chapter of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which I want to be clear does not affect any clause in this Bill in any way.
I think I have time to address the specific concern that the hon. Member for Strangford raised. It is important to be clear that the 2005 procedural directive is not within the annexes of the Windsor framework.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I am grateful to the Minister for addressing those points as clearly as he did. He will acknowledge that although he has addressed them in his closing remarks this evening, the Home Office published legal advice yesterday that did not touch on any of those points. May I ask him to take steps in the coming days to go further and update that legal advice in a way that encompasses the points he has just raised, in order to assuage the concerns of the House this evening?
Michael Tomlinson
May I give the hon. Gentleman this commitment: I will continue to work with him on the points that he has raised? I need to be careful about legal advice, as a former Law Officer. What has been published is a Government legal position statement, and that is different from legal advice. He will understand the differences in relation to that position. He has heard what I have said, and I was grateful to him for welcoming the points I made in response to the specific concerns raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) mentioned the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which gave me flashbacks to my grilling by that illustrious Committee, when I was sitting alongside my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General in my former role as Solicitor General. We followed that very report mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Turning to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), and the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), I make the simple point that I cannot address each and every one of the points made by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North here. However, I know she is looking forward to asking me some specific questions tomorrow afternoon when I attend her Committee with my hon. Friend the Minister for Legal Migration and Delivery.
We then had from a former Law Officer-fest, as we had the pleasure of hearing from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox), my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who now chairs the Justice Committee, and from my illustrious predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland). I am pleased to say that I am now a former Law Officer as well. We therefore have a joint endeavour and interest in making sure that this legislation works.
I have mentioned my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham and her important point about Rwanda and the rather patronising tone sometimes raised by Opposition Members when it comes to our international partners who have signed up to an internationally binding legal treaty with this country.
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the immigration Minister to his place. Is he aware that while he has been speaking the New Conservatives, the European Research Group, the Northern Research Group, the Conservative Growth Group and the Common Sense Group have all said that they cannot support the Bill and are going to abstain tonight? Does he accept that this looks like the Prime Minister’s breakfast meeting was a total failure? And does he accept that this is just complete civil war in the Conservative party?
Michael Tomlinson
The answer is: no, no and no. [Interruption.] I am here; I have been in the Chamber.
Turning to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Sir Conor Burns), I thank my constituency neighbour for his delivery of a powerful and compassionate speech, as he always gives. My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) asked me to work with him, to be open-minded and to look at ways to make the Bill more effective. In contrast to my response to the previous intervention, my answer is: yes, yes and yes. He and I have worked together before and I commit to continuing to work again with him during the rest of the passage of this Bill.
Michael Tomlinson
Forgive me, but I will not.
In the time I have left, I will refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), who I hope will continue to work with me on this Bill. I listened carefully to what he had to say. I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), who is a member of the Home Affairs Committee and spoke with great authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) spoke clearly about her position, the direct impact on her constituency and the imperative of ensuring we stop the boats. My notes about the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) say that he was “on fire.” I am grateful for his contribution; those who missed it should go and watch it on playback.
My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) made a powerful, measured and careful speech, and I was grateful for his earlier intervention. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for his contribution, particularly and sincerely for mentioning our late colleague James Brokenshire and his able work in this area.
There was common sense from my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman); I thank him for his contribution. There were attempts to shout down my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) while he was speaking. He stood up, as he often does in the Chamber, in the face of that barrage. He talks openly about his faith. I respect him sincerely for the way he does that and for the way he conducts his business in the Chamber.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) has the distinction of serving on not one but two Select Committees. Not only does he do that, but he does it with distinction and diligence, and I always like listening to his speeches. He had the temerity to suggest that lawyers may, from time to time, disagree with each other—what an outrageous suggestion. I am only sorry that there were not more lawyers in the Chamber to hear that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) made an outstanding speech. More people should have been in the Chamber to hear the inescapable, inestimable and irresistible logic of his compelling speech. As one of my predecessors, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for his work in this area and for pointing out what has already happened since the Supreme Court judgment—namely, the treaty. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) gave us actual numbers, not just percentages, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) took us on a tour du monde. It is not just our country that faces these challenges; this is a global challenge of our time.
Let me end by saying that I have sat through more than six hours of this six and a half hour debate. I heard every single speech from the Government Benches and most speeches from the Opposition Benches. I heard every single speech made from the Labour Front Bench, and what was missing was a plan. Labour has no plan. There was intervention after intervention, but where was the plan? There was chuntering from a sedentary position by the Home Secretary, asking “Where is the plan?” Answer came there none. There was a verbal vacuum—not even a cut-and-paste solution. There was no plan whatsoever. Contrast that with the clear determination of all those on the Government side of the Chamber to stop the boats. Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
First day | |
Clauses 2 and 4; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses. | Six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the first day. |
Second day | |
Clauses 3 and 5 to 10; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; Clause 1; remaining proceedings on the Bill. | Six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day. |
Business without Debate
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Petitions
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Linlithgow and East Falkirk in relation to frozen British pensions. There is a considerable amount wrong with pension policy in the UK, from having one of the lowest rates in north-west Europe, to the abysmal treatment of the WASPI women and the half a million British citizens around the world whose pensions have been frozen due to the failure to establish bilateral agreements, including 127,000 people in Canada. Therefore, the petitioners request that
“the House of Commons urge the Government engage with the Canadian Government on the issue and finally remedy this injustice and reflect respect and courtesy for our British citizens and our Commonwealth neighbours.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Linlithgow and East Falkirk,
Declares the UK pensioners deserve a full uprated State Pension whenever they choose to live; further that UK pensioners who have paid their fair share of NI contributions should not suffer the consequences of successive UK Governments' failure to establish bilateral agreements with certain countries; notes the new report "UK-Canada: An Unequal Partnership" that highlights the stark contrast in engagement between the UK and Canada on the frozen pensions policy, which impacts half a million British citizens worldwide and 127,000 in Canada alone; and further declares that despite Canada formally requesting negotiations on the policy four times between 2013 and 2022, the UK has refused to engage.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government engage with the Canadian Government on the issue and finally remedy this injustice and reflect respect and courtesy for our British citizens and our Commonwealth neighbours.]
[P002884]
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
I am delighted to present this petition relating to support for regional airports on behalf of my constituents. The introduction of additional public service obligation routes would transform the outlook for regional aviation in this country, facilitating the growth of airports such as Blackpool and supporting local economic development. In the case of Blackpool airport, the creation of further PSO routes would help to achieve the restoration of commercial passenger flights, which is something that the vast majority of my constituents support.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petition and take immediate action to ensure that local airports such as Blackpool are supported.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Blackpool South
Declares that the Government should consider reform of the Public Service Obligation routes to support regional Airports such as Blackpool.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to ensure that local airports such as Blackpool are supported.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002886]
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I rise to present a petition about Thames Water’s Teddington direct river abstraction proposals to draw water out of the River Thames in times of drought and replace it with treated sewage. I sincerely hope that Ministers will listen to the more than 700 residents who have signed this petition, the almost 30,000 people who have signed the Change.org petition and the many hundreds who responded to the company’s consultation on the water resources management plan, all of whom are deeply concerned about the significant environmental, social and construction impacts.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons ask the Government to remove the Teddington Direct River Abstraction scheme as an option in the Water Resources Management Plan, which is currently under review by DEFRA.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Twickenham in London
Declares extreme concern regarding Thames Water’s proposed scheme to build the Teddington Direct River Abstraction (DRA) project; notes that this would involve extracting up to 75 million litres of water from the River Thames in Teddington and replacing it with treated effluent from Mogden Sewage Treatment works; further notes that this project would involve the construction of tunnels and shafts starting in Isleworth and passing through Twickenham and Ham; further declares the potential risks this presents to local areas, both in terms of the impact on human health, the environment and biodiversity, and in terms of the disruption caused by construction in residential areas, as well as in nature areas in Moormead Park and Ham Lands; further notes the opposition conveyed by local community groups and residents; further declares concern that feedback submitted through Thames Water’s initial public consultations has not been adequately reflected in Thames Water’s response so far; and further declares that more viable alternatives to the Teddington DRA, with broader public support, have been discarded.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons ask the Government to remove the Teddington DRA as an option in the Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP), which is currently under review by DEFRA.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002888]
Crohn’s and Colitis Awareness Week
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I am incredibly grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate and for the flexibility shown by the Speaker’s Office in moving it when I was ill last week.
Last week was Crohn’s and Colitis Awareness Week, an opportunity to break the silence on inflammatory bowel disease and highlight the impact of these terrible conditions on people’s lives. I want to thank in particular: Crohn’s and Colitis UK, which has given us a huge amount of support; the hon. Member—my hon. Friend I would like to call her—for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green), who with me jointly recently reconvened the all-party parliamentary group on Crohn’s and colitis; and Alyson in my office, who supported me in writing today’s speech.
Over 500,000 people in the UK—one in every 123 people—live with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis. These are debilitating, lifelong conditions that develop when the immune system attacks the gut. Tragically, there is currently no cure. Symptoms include urgent and frequent diarrhoea, rectal bleeding, pain, profound fatigue, anaemia, and inflammation of the joints, skin, liver and eyes. These conditions are widely misunderstood, with its invisible and stigmatised symptoms often leading to isolation, a lack of support and poor mental health. That is why this Crohn’s and Colitis Awareness Week we wanted to break the silence on inflammatory bowel disease, raising greater awareness of the conditions and helping those many people—many of them our constituents —living with them to speak more openly about the impact on their lives.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady. I was looking forward to her Adjournment debate last week. It is good to see her back in health and strength. Incontinence is a common symptom of Crohn’s and colitis, experienced by as many as three in four people with Crohn’s or colitis. Understandably, incontinence or the fear of experiencing incontinence can cause anxiety about leaving home, which can seriously affect work and social life. Does she agree that more work must be done with the Department for Work and Pensions to train personal independence payment assessors on the impacts of Crohn’s and colitis, to ensure that those suffering have the best possible chance of getting the benefits that they are entitled to?
Hannah Bardell
It almost seems as if the hon. Gentleman has read the next bit of my speech, because I was about to come to the point he has just made—and it is an extremely important and salient point. We do need to ensure that PIP assessors, and the whole framework, can take into consideration those with relapsing and remitting conditions such as Crohn’s and colitis.
I now want to share the experiences of some of those people with the House, because one of them is my brother. When he was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis just over nine years ago, he was in his late 20s and a new dad to a premature little girl. While we were cooing, and worrying a little, about this new bundle of joy—who is now a strapping nine-year-old—my brother was struggling, and had been for some time. I think that, in truth, he was terrified about how fatal the diagnosis might be. It was not until much later that it dawned on us all just what he had been through. When his diagnosis finally came, it was truly devastating. His life and that of our family were, for a period, turned upside down. An active and fit football lover, a new dad and an outgoing and often, frankly, a bit too cheeky young man was stopped in his tracks.
As a frontline police officer with big ambitions and talent, my brother had to adjust to a very different life, existence and career path. The pain, the fatigue and the various other symptoms that he, like many others, had experienced suddenly had a name. Apart from the initial period when he was off work to recover and adapt, his condition meant that, for instance, our annual camping holiday in the west highlands was suddenly in jeopardy. A four-hour drive when it could not be predicted whether toilets would be open or available was suddenly something that was potentially out of reach. My brother, however, being the resourceful problem-solver that he is, traded his car for a pick-up truck and popped a portable loo in the back, which meant that while he adjusted to his anxiety about being able to find a toilet when travelling, such things could be managed. I do not think he ever used the portable loo, but it was there just in case.
I believe that my brother would now count himself one of the lucky ones, and that, in fact, is just the point. For those who suffer from any kind of inflammatory bowel disease—and I acknowledge that people with endometriosis or conditions like cancer suffer very similar challenges—finding a loo that is working, stocked and clean is a perennial problem. Perhaps the Minister would like to meet me some time to discuss how we can develop better facilities—perhaps some kind of interactive map, in an app, of “loos that will do”.
My constituent Steven Sharp, to whom I pay tribute, is a brilliant young man from Fauldhouse. He is a Crohn’s sufferer, and he has raised thousands of pounds for charity over the years by, for instance, doing a bungee jump. He has often spoken to me about the joint pain, the fatigue and the unpredictability of the disease and its impact on his life. That unpredictability is one of the major challenges; the symptoms can change and be different every single day. Steven also lives with a stoma. He and I recently met the Prime Minister, and I have to say that the Prime Minister was incredibly supportive and kind to him. I hope that that kindness will be extended to provisions to ensure that those living with Crohn’s and colitis can obtain the support they need.
My friend Rachel Agnew, who I hope is watching the debate and with whom I spent time this summer, also talked to me about her many years of illness with Crohn’s disease and a possible misdiagnosis. Having had many major operations, she now has “Stan the stoma”, who can sometimes be cantankerous but has ultimately saved her life. Rachel recently had to give up a job that she loved, and is now having to navigate the complexities of the benefit system while having a relapsing and remitting disease.
Research commissioned by Crohn’s and Colitis UK has revealed that the scale of Crohn’s and colitis has been vastly underestimated, and that twice as many people as previously thought are living with the condition. In particular, as we know from recent debates and briefings, young children are being diagnosed earlier and earlier in their lives. I think that we need to pause and consider why that is happening. What are the environmental impacts? What are the impacts of over-processed food? I have no doubt that those elements play a part, and we need to fund research to enable us to get to the bottom of that.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing today’s Adjournment debate to raise awareness of Crohn’s and colitis. Symptoms such as abdominal pain, diarrhoea and fatigue are too often dismissed, especially when they come and go. A poll by Crohn’s and Colitis UK found that more than one in 10 people would put off speaking to a healthcare professional if they had diarrhoea with blood or mucus and stomach pain because they found it too embarrassing to speak to a healthcare professional about their symptoms. Does the hon. Lady agree that a public awareness campaign on lower gastrointestinal symptoms is needed to help people access reliable healthcare and advice and to take control of their health?
Hannah Bardell
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need greater awareness. People need to live without that stigma, and they must not be scared to talk about their poo. They need to be able to go to their doctor and discuss this openly, and their doctors need to be able to offer the right care.
Only one in four people are diagnosed before they are 30, thus affecting the most productive years of their lives. Crohn’s and colitis are complicated diseases that follow a relapsing and remitting disease course. We therefore need a benefits and social security system that supports people with these conditions. As the hon. Lady has said, it is also crucial that we raise awareness. People are waiting far too long for a diagnosis of Crohn’s or colitis. Even before the pandemic, one in four people waited a year to be diagnosed, with nearly half ending up in accident and emergency at least once before their diagnosis.
Delays to diagnosis affect people’s ability to continue education and work. They also narrow the treatment options while increasing the risk of being hospitalised. We do not want anybody to feel that they are a burden on the NHS, but there is a greater burden on the NHS when people are diagnosed later and are unable to access that care. Research found that only one in two people had ever heard of these conditions and that even fewer could name the symptoms. To make matters worse, people are not facing up to this, not understanding it, and putting it down to other things. You could say that it is time to talk more crap than we already do. If sufferers struggle to discuss incontinence with health professionals, it can have a profound impact, but these discussions are vital to ensure that people with Crohn’s and colitis receive the support and accommodations they need.
I would like to highlight the work of the SNP-led Scottish Government, who are committed to ensuring that those living with Crohn’s and colitis can access the best possible care and support, and access health services that are safe and effective and that put people at the centre of their care. For example, in March this year the Scottish Government launched an awareness campaign to help increase awareness of Crohn’s and colitis symptoms and to signpost reliable information so that people would feel empowered to seek help from a medical professional when needed. I would be delighted to hear the Minister say that the UK Government will do the same and that they will work across the UK and internationally with those who are leading in the field of research.
Bowel conditions are notoriously difficult to diagnose, so we must remind people that the symptoms of some of these conditions, including IBS, coeliac disease and bowel cancer, can be similar to those of Crohn’s or colitis. It is crucial that those with Crohn’s or colitis have these conversations and get a diagnosis as early as possible. If left untreated and poorly managed, these conditions can cause serious complications that require emergency medical or surgical intervention.
At a recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on Crohn’s and colitis, we heard from a sufferer who had had the most horrific experience during covid. She was taken by ambulance after terrible weight loss, and hearing her experience, particularly during covid, brought home to us how awful this can be and how difficult it is for young people, in particular, to face up to something that will be lifelong and debilitating.
Inflammatory bowel disease care is often overlooked and under-resourced. Current resource planning is based on outdated data on the number of people living with these conditions, which we know is twice as many as was previously estimated. One long-serving IBD clinical nurse specialist recently told us how, 18 years ago, her service was supporting 250 patients living with Crohn’s and colitis and is now supporting more than 7,000. That kind of increase is not realistic for our healthcare staff to deal with. Consequently, there is a significant variation in quality of care across the UK. No IBD service currently meets the IBD standards, so we need to work together to improve that.
The Scottish Government will continue to improve services for people with the conditions through modernising the patient pathways programme. It has a specific workstream that is continuing to promote improvements in inflammatory bowel disease care for patients across Scotland, in partnership with the third sector and people with lived experience. Additionally, the Scottish Government are funding gastroenterology specialty groups that lead on research into Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, with a focus on a range of areas, including early diagnosis of these conditions.
We look forward to seeing the results of IBD UK’s benchmarking surveys, which are currently being undertaken. There will be data from over 15,000 patients and 63% of IBD services, and I hope the Government will take that into consideration and give it their very close attention.
As we have discussed, Crohn’s and colitis not only affect the gut; they can affect almost every part of the body and every aspect of life, from digestion, eyes and joints to energy. However, many people tell us that the hardest part of living with these conditions is the prejudice and discrimination that come from living with a hidden disability. The awareness cards that are now available from Crohn’s and Colitis UK and other charities do help, but we need awareness not only from people who suffer from Crohn’s and colitis, but from the public at large. When somebody who does not appear to have a physical impairment uses a disabled toilet, it does not mean that they do not need to use that toilet. Three in four people will experience bowel incontinence, and therefore quick access to a suitable toilet facility is crucial, either to prevent or to act should an accident occur.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful contribution. I believe the Government should undertake work on accessible toilets to help people who have Crohn’s and colitis. In my Upper Bann constituency, we have rolled out a fleet of accessible toilets. Does she agree that this should be mirrored throughout the United Kingdom, and that there should be more focus on the availability of Radar keys for disabled toilets?
Hannah Bardell
I congratulate the hon. Lady on the work that has been done in Upper Bann, and perhaps there are lessons that can be learned by all Governments across the UK. Incontinence can cause considerable anxiety. I often talk to my brother about what is worse now. Although a flare up can be seriously debilitating, the day-to-day anxiety never goes away and is always with those who suffer.
What is more, some Crohn’s and colitis sufferers have stoma bags, meaning that not only do they need to find a toilet, but they need to find one that has enough space for them to change and dispose of equipment comfortably, hygienically and in privacy. There was recently an excellent event in Parliament for International Men’s Day that talked about the need for sanitary bins in men’s toilets, which is incredibly important. Men often suffer from incontinence, and they certainly suffer from Crohn’s and colitis, so making sure that all toilets have such safe and sanitary facilities is crucial. I am not sure whether that would require an Act of Parliament, but it strikes me that it would have support across the House, because the fear of incontinence or being unable to locate a toilet can lead to a breakdown in mental wellbeing and social isolation through people choosing simply not to leave their home. We have all been there. We have all had a sickness, a bug or an upset tummy and either nearly not made it or not made it. Imagine that being your life every single day.
Many living with Crohn’s and colitis will understand, and I hope they will hear, these calls. A key thing we have heard about time and again is the social security system, because less than 3% of people living with Crohn’s and colitis are in receipt of personal independence payment. Four in five are denied the support they need. Words like “battling” and “fighting” are often used to describe the experience of those applying for PIP. I recently spoke to someone who talked about how degrading they felt the system is, and that was somebody who is chronically ill and often cannot leave the house. For them to be scared of going through a system that is supposed to be a safety net is utterly appalling, and I hope the Minister will hear that and talk more about how the social security system can support people with Crohn’s and colitis.
The current benefit system defines disability as a permanent and substantial impairment, or a long-term health condition that is likely to degenerate. Those I have given examples from, those we have taken evidence from and those who will be watching at home tonight—no one can tell me that their condition is not long term. There is little recognition of fluctuating health conditions, and fluctuating health conditions are not just Crohn’s and colitis. There are many other conditions, so we have to have a system that is designed to support all those people.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I hope that the Minister hears the points she is making. One thing that constituents consistently raise with me about Crohn’s and colitis is the impact of benefit assessors’ lack of awareness of the impact and fluctuating nature of the conditions, which my hon .Friend has been describing, and the need to end informal assessment in the personal independence payment process. Does she share their concerns about those points?
Hannah Bardell
I absolutely do. It is fortuitous that my hon. Friend raises that issue, because the statistics tell us that only one in two people score points under the toileting needs and continence descriptor, despite the severity of the symptom on everyday life. The fact that three in four people with Crohn’s and colitis will experience it just shows how profound the issue is.
I wish to highlight that the Scottish Government are reforming flexible disability assessment for fluctuating diseases. That is good news for people in Scotland, but what about people across the rest of the UK? The Scottish Government are consulting people with lived experiences on the mobility component of their adult disability payment. That includes researching the impact of moving around, planning and following journeys for those with fluctuating conditions. The adult disability payment differs from PIP, as it intends to get decisions right first time by trusting what people tell Social Security Scotland. Time and again, I have heard from people who have been through the assessment process for PIP and have been undermined and scared. I know people who have just not gone there, including some constituents who have come to see me; they do not want to go through the process, because they are so scared of it. We must move away from that. Treating people with dignity, fairness and respect is at the heart of delivering the adult disability payment.
I have highlighted just some of the impact that Crohn’s and colitis has on people’s lives. It is vital that we invest in developing a national primary care diagnostic pathway for lower gastrointestinal conditions, as my hon. Friend suggested, destigmatise IBD symptoms and create a benefits system that supports people with all types of disabilities. Just as the Crohn’s and Colitis UK campaign says, it is time to cut the crap and give greater awareness about IBD and those who suffer from this terrible life-limiting disease. We have an opportunity to do something really good: to give those who suffer from these terrible diseases an opportunity to take their full role in their communities and do jobs that they may otherwise be unable to do if they do not get that diagnosis and that support as early as possible.
I hope the Minister has heard what we have said, and heard the experiences of our constituents and those close to us. I look forward to his contribution.
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
Let me start by congratulating the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) on securing this debate on this important issue. She is a tireless campaigner for those living with bowel conditions, particularly Crohn’s and colitis, and she has spoken movingly this evening about her own family’s experience of the condition. I also pay tribute to the hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) for their contributions. I will try to address as many of the points that have been made in the time allowed to me.
It is important that we all do everything we can to break the stigma and ensure that sufferers’ voices are heard. The hon. Member for Livingston has already done invaluable work in helping to re-establish the all-party group on Crohn’s and colitis. I also wish to pay tribute to the charities that support half a million people living with IBD across the UK all year round—Crohn’s and Colitis UK, the Crohn’s in Childhood Research Association, and the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, to name just a few. On this issue, as with so many others, it is vital that we do everything we can to break down the barriers to those affected from accessing healthcare. As Crohn’s and Colitis UK has said, “it takes guts” to come forward with your story, and I salute its “cut the crap” campaign. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady as we find solutions to improve the lives of people living with this disease. As she has rightly said, living with Crohn’s and colitis can be a daily struggle. Symptoms of the disease can be embarrassing, leading to people feeling isolated and not reaching out for the support they need.
I will focus briefly on three things my Department and NHS England are doing to help sufferers: raising professional awareness, improving diagnosis and research. I begin with the crucial point about raising awareness, as getting people diagnosed as early as possible is key.
There are two kinds of awareness. First, as the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham mentioned, there is raising awareness among the public. Stigma is the invisible wall preventing people from seeking the help they need and campaigners are central to smashing that stigma, because of their reach into communities across the country. Campaigners, like the hon. Member for Livingston’s constituent Steven Sharp, have done much to raise awareness and break down that invisible wall. They encourage people to get to their GPs and ask the right questions. I am keen for us to be backing people like Steven every step of the way.
By helping GPs to recognise the symptoms of Crohn’s and colitis through NHS England’s “Getting it right the first time” gastroenterology programme, conditions can be diagnosed as quickly as possible. The programme supports primary care services, driving appropriate referrals and managing inflammatory bowel disease in the community, and is estimated to reduce emergency admissions by more than 6,500 a year. It has been commended by the King’s Fund, which is not always in the habit of showering praise on the Government.
It is also right that doctors should be properly trained to treat the symptoms of Crohn’s and colitis as they appear. In the past five years, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has produced a range of guidance to ensure that the care doctors provide for Crohn’s is based on the best possible evidence.
Early diagnosis can make a clear difference to people’s quality of life. We are working hard to improve early diagnosis rates through the “Getting it right the first time” programme and through measures that include more six and seven-day services, extended hours, reviewed and expanded endoscopy capacity, and improved patient flow. NHS England is working closely with front-line clinical experts, patient representatives and leading charities to develop evidence-based tools that improve care. The work includes provision of a right care scenario on inflammatory bowel disease. That will set out our expectations of high-quality, joined-up care at every point of the patient journey, from diagnosis to treatment. Officials assure me this is being finalised and will be delivered in the coming year.
NHS England’s national bladder and bowel health project is delivering better care to people with inflammatory bowel disease, with a focus on developing clinical pathways. Making a diagnosis of Crohn’s and colitis can be difficult and frustrating for patients as the condition can be confused with irritable bowel syndrome, so I am pleased that NICE has recently made faecal calprotectin tests available on the NHS as a non-invasive, inexpensive method for assessing patients before invasive procedures are required.
As the Minister responsible for life sciences, I am passionate that we can do everything we can to accomplish better patient outcomes through investing more in research. That is key to gaining a better understanding of the causes of inflammatory bowel disease, leading to better diagnosis, treatment and outcomes.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response, by which I am sure hon. Members are encouraged. However, the hon. Member for Livingston and I asked specifically about PIPs, which we are very concerned about. I know that is not the Minister’s responsibility, but will he undertake to speak to the relevant Minister to ensure there are movements to help and improve that system?
Andrew Stephenson
I am happy to give the hon. Member that undertaking. As he rightly acknowledges, I am not a Department for Work and Pensions Minister. I do not want to tread on their toes, but I will be relaying the clear views expressed during the debate to DWP Ministers because it is important that we get the benefit system right to support all people living with conditions such as these.
I will, if I may, return to the research point. We are investing more than £1 billion a year in health research with the National Institute of Health and Care Research. We are funding 60 projects on Crohn’s and colitis research, backed by more than £33 million over the past five years. I appeal to every scientist who may be interested in research in this area to keep applying for grants through the NIHR. I will leave no stone unturned in finding out what more can be done to address the needs of people affected by these conditions. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady to create the kind of care that people deserve. Whatever our political differences, I am sure that we will agree that half a million people living with inflammatory bowel disease are entitled to the highest possible standards of care and support.
I will continue engaging with the hon. Lady and with NHS England to make sure that the “Getting it right first time” programme is delivering results for patients on the ground. I began this speech by talking about the invisible wall preventing people from accessing the healthcare that they need. Let us tear down that wall together.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2023
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie.
The draft order was laid before the House on 7 November. If it is approved, it will implement the devolution deal agreed between the Government and the councils of York and North Yorkshire on 1 August 2022. Since then, we have worked closely with the councils on implementation, and on 3 November 2023, those councils consented to the order.
The order will establish a new York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority and the office of Mayor for the area, with the first election taking place on 2 May 2024. The elected Mayor will then take up office on 7 May, with a four-year term ending at the next mayoral election in May 2028. Thereafter, there will be elections every fourth year to be held on the ordinary election day for the year: the first Thursday in May. Following the enactment of the Elections Act 2022, those mayoral elections will be held on a first-past-the-post basis.
The Mayor will be the chair of York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, which will comprise as constituent councils City of York Council and North Yorkshire Council. The combined authority will be established on the day after the day on which the order is made, subject to parliamentary approval, which is likely to be before the end of the year.
Until the elected Mayor takes office, there will be an interim chair of the combined authority, which will appoint one of its members to that post. The order confers significant functions on the combined authority, as agreed in the devolution deal. They include the functions of a police, fire and crime commissioner, to be exercised by the Mayor.
Other significant functions include, as set out in the devolution deal, concurrent powers with Homes England, powers on regeneration and transport, and powers for establishing mayoral development corporations.
Education and skills functions will be conferred on the combined authority at a later date, along with the devolution of the adult education budget, as agreed with the area.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Can the Minister say whether the residents of York and North Yorkshire have been consulted about these huge changes? That has happened in other areas. Have the residents had any say in this?
Jacob Young
Absolutely. We have a statutory responsibility to consult. I will come on to that later.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Minister said that the Mayor would be elected every four years on a fixed-term basis. Why does he think that that is a better system than the Mayor being able to decide when he or she wishes to have an election, just as the Prime Minister gets to choose when to hold the UK general election?
Jacob Young
Local government generally holds elections every four years. We are considering a local government Mayor and we therefore think that it is right that they are elected every four years.
As I was saying, the adult education budget will be devolved to the combined authority later, as agreed with the area. That is with a view to the area being responsible for skills and adult education from the academic year 2025-26, subject to its meeting the readiness conditions, and to parliamentary approval of the secondary legislation that confers the functions.
The order also provides for the governance arrangements of the combined authority. Each constituent council will have two members on the combined authority, and the Mayor will appoint one of them to be Deputy Mayor. The Mayor will also appoint a Deputy Mayor for policing and crime, who may be any person the Mayor considers appropriate. Those governance arrangements provide that the PFCC functions and certain other functions—for example, the power to designate a mayoral development area, or to draw up local transport plans and strategies—are to be exercised by the Mayor personally. The Mayor may delegate the exercise of those functions to another member or officer of the authority, with particular specified arrangements for the PFCC functions.
The order will be made, if Parliament approves, under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, as amended by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. As required by the 2016 Act, along with this order, we have laid a section 105B report, which provides details about the public authority functions that we are devolving to the combined authority, some of which are to be exercised by the Mayor.
The statutory origin of the order is in a governance review and scheme adopted by the constituent councils in accordance with the requirements of the 2009 Act. It reflects the agreed devolution deal.
As provided for by the 2009 Act, the councils of York and North Yorkshire consulted on the proposals in their scheme. That goes directly to the point that the hon. Member for Wansbeck made. The councils promoted the consultation by several means and activities. Responses could be made online or directly by email or on paper. That public consultation ran from 21 October to 16 December 2022, and a total of around 2,500 people responded to it through a variety of platforms. As statute requires, the constituent councils provided the Secretary of State with a summary of the responses on 9 March 2023. The results of the online survey show that a majority of 54% of respondents support or strongly support the overall proposals for the establishment of and the governance arrangements for a new mayoral combined authority and an elected Mayor.
The Secretary of State is satisfied that the order meets the statutory tests in the 2009 Act, namely that no further consultation is necessary, and that conferring the proposed powers would be likely to: improve the exercise of statutory functions in the combined authority area; reflect the identities and interests of local communities; secure effective and convenient local government, and ensure that, where the functions are local authority functions, they can be appropriately exercised by the combined authority.
Most importantly, the order opens a way to providing the very considerable funding for the area set out in the deal. That includes £18 million of annual investment funding for York and North Yorkshire for the next 30 years. In total, that will mean more than £500 million to be invested in the area to drive growth and take forward local priorities. The deal also includes an additional £1 million to support the development of local transport plans, more than £13 million for building new homes on brownfield land during 2023-24 and 2024-25, and £7 million investment to drive green economic growth, along with investment of up to £2.65 million in projects that support the area’s priority of delivering affordable, low-carbon homes.
The existing local enterprise partnership will be integrated into the new combined authority to facilitate support for the local economy and the business sector. The Government are currently investing £25.4 million from the UK shared prosperity fund and from the Multiply fund in the York and North Yorkshire area. From 2025-26, York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority will plan and deliver this funding, if the UKSPF is continued and delivery geographies remain the same. All that will help the Mayor and local leaders to drive economic growth and development for rural, coastal and urban communities across York and North Yorkshire.
I pay tribute to the local leaders and their councils for all they have done and continue to do to address local priorities and support businesses, industry and communities across York and North Yorkshire.
The order, which is supported locally, is a significant step forward for York and North Yorkshire, its businesses and communities. It is key to the future economic development and regeneration of the area, and it will enable local leaders to invest in and address local priorities effectively. I commend it to the Committee.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I am delighted to take up the role of shadow Minister for English Devolution and Local Government, and to discuss devolution in England once again.
If we want to achieve change in our country, we must all be steadfast champions of local and devolved government, where decisions can be taken by communities with a real interest in and insight into place and the people who live there. There is no road to recovering our fragile economy or fractured public services, or delivering on the demands for power to be distributed, which does not travel through our local councils, combined authorities and mayors.
Parliament is privileged to have many former councillors serving in it. I know from serving as a councillor for 13 years, including as a council leader, the difference that local government can make when public services are aligned with public good. However, we also know that those foundation are weakened after 13 years of austerity. Nine councils have issued section 114 notices, and there is a strong chance that more will follow, unless the Govt take urgent action. There is still no plan from the Government to deal with the chronic state of adult social care, rocketing demand for children’s services, and the broken housing market that fuels the homelessness crisis, the like of which we have not seen in modern times.
There can be no hiding from the fact that the mini-Budget just over a year ago, which sent so many households to the brink, is also hitting councils hard. Rocketing inflation means that the cost of servicing borrowing is much higher. The cost of energy and wider inflation mean that budgets set in good faith simply do not hold against that tide.
English devolution is, at best, a fragmented patchwork, which still excludes large parts of the country. Before entering Parliament, I had the honour of serving on the Greater Manchester Combined Authority as we were building the first devolution deal outside London, which created, I believe, the most expansive devolution package in England. It created the conditions for Greater Manchester to take control of its bus network, unleashing fairer fares and delivering for the needs of local communities and the economy. There was also a rapid package to reform health and social care in the area.
However, that was 10 years ago. Progress on rolling out further powers across England has been painfully slow. We have seen great things in the Yorkshire region, with Mayor Tracy Brabin in West Yorkshire and Mayor Oliver Coppard in South Yorkshire. They are showing the difference devolution can make when Westminster learns to let go.
That is happening across the country under Labour metro Mayors and council leaders. Areas such as York and North Yorkshire, which we are discussing today, are rightly being pragmatic in accepting that the order is an important step forward, and we hope that the Hull and East Riding devolution agreement makes further progress too. However, the truth is that the devolution settlement is fragmented, piecemeal and does not go far or fast enough. The powers and resources do not touch the sides of what is needed and do not provide enough resilience in the age of austerity.
Too many devolution deals lack ambition from the Government. In too many places, including large parts of rural England, there is no devolution to speak of. It is important to address that. Consequently, communities cannot assert control over the places where they live and invest. That means that local people, economies and the services they rely on are held back and starved of the investment they need to get on.
As the begging bowl culture and “hunger games” approach continue, we cannot level up from the top down, which is why Labour will set a presumption towards handing power back to our towns, cities and communities. Labour will push power out of Westminster with a “take back control” Act that gives communities a direct say in their future. We will start by giving all our metro Mayors the powers and flexibility to turbocharge growth in their areas, for example, over planning and housing, transport, net zero and adult education.
We will offer all places the right to negotiate with the Government for powers that have been devolved elsewhere. Local leaders will take on powers whereby they can demonstrate capacity and sound financial management. Giving all towns and cities the tools they need to create good jobs and attract investment, including longer-term funding settlements for local government, is important for our collective future.
We do not intend to divide the Committee on the order. We hope that more progress and ambition across England can be shown when it is made.
Jacob Young
I welcome the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton to his place. It is good to see him back on the Front Bench.
As I said earlier, the order is widely welcomed by the people of York and North Yorkshire. It is a significant development for the whole area, which is largely rural as well as including significant towns and coastal communities, along with the amazing city of York. It makes an important contribution to the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, on which he served. That combined authority was created and the powers were conferred on it by this Government. Even the bus network, which the Mayor of Greater Manchester is now delivering, is being delivered through powers that the Government conferred. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the West Yorkshire Combined Authority. Guess what, Mr Hosie? That, too, was created by this Government. We also created the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority. The Government are truly driving devolution forward. When the last Labour Government were in power, the only area in England that had a devolution agreement was London. Labour even tried a failed devolution experiment, whereby the toon was to run the borough. We rejected that universally because devolution has to be locally led. That is the principle that we have adopted. We will not force devolution on any area that does not want it.
As part of our levelling-up missions, as set out in the levelling-up White Paper and now the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, we have provided that every area that wants a devolution deal by 2030 will have one. We have made that commitment, but we will not force any area into going down the devolution road if it does not want to do that. Devolution must be bespoke and fit the area’s needs.
I am delighted that York and North Yorkshire have chosen to take the level 3 devolution step, as have Hull and East Yorkshire, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. A mayor is not necessarily the right fit for every area. Not long ago, I was in the constituency of the hon. Member for Blackburn, who is here, where we discussed the Lancashire devolution deal, which does not come with a Mayor because that is not right for the people of Lancashire—it is not what they chose.
The deal that the order implements will make a significant contribution to the future economic development and regeneration of York and North Yorkshire—God’s own county if anybody asks me, though I recognise that hon. Members from Lancashire may take a different view. The order will empower local leaders to invest in local priorities, and again I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Hydrogen Production Revenue Support (Directions, Eligibility and Counterparty) Regulations 2023
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Hydrogen Production Revenue Support (Directions, Eligibility and Counterparty) Regulations 2023.
The regulations were laid before the House on 8 November. On 26 October, the Energy Act 2023 received Royal Assent. It provides a legislative framework for hydrogen, including provisions that relate to the hydrogen production business model, which is a funding model for supporting the production and use of low-carbon hydrogen in the United Kingdom. Delivering that policy is essential to kick-starting the hydrogen economy and moving towards the Government’s ambition of up to 10 GW of low-carbon hydrogen production capacity by 2030, as set out in the British energy security strategy.
Under the business model, projects will be paid a subsidy for the hydrogen they produce through a revenue support contract, similar to the highly successful contracts for difference for low-carbon electricity generation. The business model contracts for hydrogen will be managed by a hydrogen production counterparty. Initial projects are to be selected through allocation rounds run by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. To receive business model support, a project must be an
“eligible low carbon hydrogen producer”.
Where such a project is allocated support, the Secretary of State will issue a direction to the hydrogen production counterparty to offer to contract with that project.
Hydrogen projects have already been shortlisted through the track-1, phase-2 cluster sequencing process and invited to negotiations for the 2022 hydrogen electrolytic allocation round.
I will now outline the detail of the regulations and their important role in all that. Fundamentally, the regulations satisfy the duty in section 66(4) of 2023 Act by determining the meaning of “eligible” in relation to a low-carbon hydrogen producer. They tell the world who can be eligible for support.
The regulations set out that only new hydrogen production facilities, or existing facilities that add new production capacity, which can demonstrate that their proposal for the production of hydrogen is capable of complying with the UK low-carbon hydrogen standard, will be considered eligible. That ensures that eligibility will keep pace with the way in which the Government define low-carbon hydrogen.
I recall that several amendments that were tabled during the passage of the 2023 Act sought to ensure that regulations on eligibility referred to the low-carbon hydrogen standard. I therefore hope that the regulations will be welcomed.
The regulations also set out the process whereby the Secretary of State may direct a counterparty to offer to contract with an eligible low-carbon hydrogen producer. That follows a similar approach to the contracts for difference, with which industry is very familiar.
Similarly, the regulations include requirements for a counterparty to publish the full contracts entered into and to establish a public register of key information. As we would expect, such publication is, of course, subject to redaction of confidential information and personal data.
The regulations set out various requirements in respect of the Secretary of State’s directions to a counterparty. They also include the circumstances in which directions cease to have effect, and enable the Secretary of State to revoke a direction before it has been accepted.
Furthermore, the regulations require a counterparty to promptly notify the Secretary of State if it is—or considers that it is likely to be—unable to carry out its functions. Committee members may think that such a provision sounds familiar, and indeed it is. It is a similar approach to that in the Nuclear Regulated Asset Base Model (Revenue Collection) Regulations 2023.
The Department has considered the content of the regulations extremely carefully. It carried out a full public consultation earlier this year, seeking views on the principles enshrined in the regulations and satisfying the statutory requirement to consult, as set out in the 2023 Act. We received 28 responses from various organisations and members of the public. We carefully considered all responses, though I am pleased to say that the majority supported our proposals.
Accordingly, in our Government response, published on 30 October, we set out plans to proceed largely as proposed, albeit with some amendments in response to the feedback received.
This secondary legislation represents an essential step towards implementing the hydrogen production business model to ensure that we can support the deployment of low-carbon hydrogen projects to achieve our 2030 ambitions, improve energy security and help achieve net zero.
I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. You chaired a substantial part of the proceedings on the Energy Bill and you will therefore be well aware of the consequences of that labour of Hercules that we undertook between us to get the measure on the statute book. The statutory instrument is one of the first to follow from the 2023 Act.
As the Minister explained succinctly, the regulations cover the process whereby the hydrogen low-carbon business plan is implemented during the initial allocation period of contracts for hydrogen producers in order to achieve our target of 10 GW of hydrogen production. As the Minister also said, qualifying schemes have already been substantially identified through track-1, phase-2 of the cluster process. Schemes will be identified and quality-assured by the Minister, who will then direct the hydrogen counterparty, which is identical in structure to the low-carbon contracts company, to provide contracts for companies that have been deemed eligible. So far, so good. That is absolutely the right thing to do to develop the outline in the Act into some detailed legislation to make the whole thing work, particularly the initial allocation process.
The explanatory notes state that the initial allocation gives way to a competitive tender process later. The directions therefore concern the initial allocation process in the first instance, but they are all to be informed by the centrepiece of the SI—the low-carbon hydrogen standard, which is generally called “the standard” in the regulations. It refers to a detailed document, which sets out the greenhouse gas emissions and sustainability criteria that programmes that apply for an allocation contract should follow.
The document is entitled, “UK Low Carbon Hydrogen Standard” and was published in April. It is interesting to note that the standard rightly provides for stringent qualifying criteria for a project’s eligibility. For example, it requires a project not to exceed a certain level of carbon emissions, and to measure fugitive hydrogen for its duration, the process whereby hydrogen is produced, transport and other things. It is a system-wide standard for the low-carbon nature of the hydrogen.
For a project to get a direction from the Minister to be awarded a contract by the hydrogen counterparty, it must comply with the standard when it receives agreement to proceed. However, as hon. Members will have observed, that standard is evolving. Indeed, the standard to which the SI refers is version 2 of the “UK Low Carbon Hydrogen Standard”. That version has evolved from the initial standard, which was produced immediately after the Act was passed. Version 2 has emerged from consultation and correction of various elements of the initial standard that could have caused difficulties, and has tightened up several matters that were uncertain, difficult or in need of clarification.
The document and the explanatory notes say that it is intended that the standard will evolve. That means that the Department envisages that it will produce further iterations of the standard in future. The low-carbon hydrogen standard as it currently stands may therefore change. That is fair enough given that we want the standard to progress, but a question then arises. If a company or body wishes to get a low-carbon hydrogen contract, what are they signing up for when they apply? Clearly, the companies that sign up want to comply with version 2 of the standard, but they will not necessarily comply with versions 3 or 4. Those companies will presumably want some assurance that they will not be knocked out of their contracts if the standard evolves.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his careful rehearsal of the background, but surely the regulations contemplate a series of private law contracts, the circumstances and detail of which will be whatever is agreed under the law. Why is he pressing the Minister on this matter now? Does he believe that the law is defective?
Dr Whitehead
No, I do not think that the law is defective, but, as I have tried to explain, it is evolving as the contracts are given out, possibly into a different form. That is an inevitable consequence of the 2023 Act being distilled into secondary legislation. As the process has gone on, the standard has evolved. My central question is whether the Minister is clear that companies that are compliant with the current standard can safely put in their bids for contracts under that standard, and will not be disadvantaged should it change in the future. I think the regulations contain provisions giving the Minister some discretion in that respect.
Conversely, if the terms are relaxed in a future iteration of the standard—I do not anticipate this happening—and compliance becomes less onerous with regard to carbon emissions, for example, might companies that are already contracted ask to sign up to the new less onerous version and continue their contract? This is evolving and it can go in two ways.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful for this clarification, although obviously the Minister will want to speak for herself and for the Government. It does not sound as though the hon. Gentleman opposes the regulations— he may wish to comment on that—but is he not flagging a difference between the evolution of the law, by further amendment in statutory instruments considered in Committee, and evolution of a contractual situation that operates within that process? If it is the latter, any Government can give an indemnity against future changes to the rules if they wish, but it is not unknown for people to sign a contract and then, further down the track, think, “If only I’d struck this contract earlier. I’d’ve got a better deal,” or vice versa. Is that not a matter of private law and negotiation between the parties, and why is it a matter for this Committee?
Dr Whitehead
It is a matter for this Committee inasmuch as the standard is the centrepiece of how the regulations will work, but that standard is itself evolving. Contracts are being given as this piece of law is evolving. Obviously, contract law applies to those contracts, which bind the company applying for the contract to a certain standard of operation, which may well put the company to quite a lot of expense and planning. It is a bit like a boxer going into training and having to reach the weight for the upcoming fight, and having reached it, then having to keep to that weight after the fight takes place, because that is the continuing standard for their operation.
What methods of verification, challenge and judgment will be used to determine whether companies are continuing to adhere to the standard, once the standard has been set in the contract? That is my final question for the Minister. Is she satisfied that that will work well? As the low-carbon standard evolves, it may well be a case that a company says, “Well, that’s my hard luck, because I signed up for something that was a bit more onerous than it is now, but I ought to stick to it anyway,” or is the Minister suggesting that companies could relax their adherence to the standard if the standard itself is relaxed? Indeed, the regulations suggest that the Minister can or may—the famous “may”—do that if she so desires.
If the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire is in any doubt, I stress that we do not oppose the SI and we want it to succeed. There is a provision, which does not always apply in regulations, that the SI comes into force tomorrow. I am sure that we will all happily agree to that. As soon as we have agreed to the regulations, they will come into force so that the contracts can be pursued.
It is important that we are clear about how the standard works on an evolving basis, but I do not wish to impede the issuing of the contracts or the forward march of hydrogen production and use in future.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I shall keep my remarks short and sharp. It does not mean that the Minister will like them, but at least they will be brief. I turned up for this Delegated Legislation Committee at six o’clock last night, so I cannot be accused of being late to the show, but I think that the UK Government can. In 2021, the UK was ranked as the second most attractive market for hydrogen, but the UK Government’s lack of commitment means that the UK is now ranked eighth. It has slipped behind Germany, Japan and Canada. That is because the UK Government continually change their attitude to renewable energies.
The UK Government’s ambition is 10 GW by 2030. I hope that the Minister can tell me what will kick on after that. What is the final ambition? By when? The Scottish Government have an ambitious hydrogen plan to produce 5 GW by 2030 and to increase that to 25 GW by 2045. They are investing £100 million in the development of Scotland’s hydrogen economy. If the UK invested at the same scale, we would be looking at a bare minimum of £1 billion. Will the Minister clarify what the financial investment will be? The Government cannot continue at a pedestrian pace.
My concern is that lack of ambition is restricting our ability to create a net zero environment. The UK target is 2050; Scotland’s is 2045. I hope that the Minister will allay my fears. What do we kick on to after 10 GW? When will that happen and how much will it cost the taxpayer?
Amanda Solloway
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their valuable contributions. I will try to answer the questions succinctly and appropriately. If anything remains outstanding, I will write, as usual, with further information.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test talked about the low-carbon hydrogen standard. Projects that seek support under the hydrogen production business model are required to show, as part of their application for revenue support, evidence that they are capable of meeting the UK low-carbon hydrogen standard.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the standard evolving over time. Regulation 2(6) makes clear that once a producer is deemed eligible under the regulations, they will not be subsequently rendered ineligible merely because of the publication of a new version of the low-carbon hydrogen standard. However, a direction issued by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 66(1) of the 2023 Act—
Amanda Solloway
Yes! The direction may require a hydrogen production revenue support contract to be offered on terms that require compliance with the later version of the standard.
To provide certainty for investors, we intend any review and updates to the standard to occur in advance of allocation rounds rather than during them. Where it is considered necessary to introduce updates during an allocation round—that is, in the period between the launch of the application window and contracts being awarded—we would aim, as part of the allocation or negotiation process, to provide projects with plenty of notice about any potential changes.
We propose that the review points for the low-carbon hydrogen standard should coincide with future contract awards through the hydrogen production business model. We would not expect any changes to be applied retrospectively to contracts that have already been awarded through these schemes. That means that the hydrogen production business model contract will not require producers to comply with any amendments made to the low-carbon hydrogen standard after the date on which the contract was signed. That will give producers confidence that the rules with which they will need to comply to receive support under the contract will not be changed retrospectively. Subject to the final contract terms and conditions, we expect that producers will be able to follow, where relevant, future changes to the LCHS, should they choose to.
Our ambition for the United Kingdom to have up to 10 GW of low-carbon hydrogen is both stretching and credible, and positions us at the front of the pack internationally. It will help us to realise a hydrogen economy that could potentially support over 12,000 jobs and result in up to £11 billion in private investment in the UK by 2030. Low-carbon hydrogen is considered to be an essential part of our future energy mix, and the hydrogen production business model seeks to address one of the key barriers to deploying low-carbon hydrogen: the higher cost of low-carbon hydrogen relative to high-carbon counterfactual fuels. We intend to launch the second hydrogen allocation round this year, following the announcement of the projects that were successful in the first hydrogen electrolytic allocation round.
The regulations are vital in enabling contracts to be awarded, so that projects can take investment decisions that will kick-start the deployment of low-carbon hydrogen production in the UK. I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Media Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 12th December 2023
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Media Bill 2023-24 View all Media Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2023 - (12 Dec 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members that Hansard colleagues will be very grateful indeed if you email your speaking notes to them. I remind everyone to please switch their devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Clause 48
Regulation of radio selection services
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 42, in clause 48, page 88, line 17, at end insert—
“(b) an in-car entertainment system.”
This amendment and Amendments 43 and 44 would expand the scope of the definition of a “radio selection service” to include non-voice activated in-car entertainment systems.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 43, in clause 48, page 88, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) For the purposes of this Part, “in-car entertainment system” means any equipment designed or adapted for use in a motor vehicle that enables, or among other things enables, a user of the equipment to use it to give instructions to a radio selection service, whether by giving spoken commands that are recorded by the equipment or otherwise.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 42.
Amendment 44, in clause 48, page 94, line 13, leave out from “giving” to the end and insert
“instructions to the service (whether by spoken commands that are recorded by equipment connected to the internet or otherwise)”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 42.
Kirsty Blackman
It is a pleasure to take part in this Committee stage of the Media Bill today. I will not talk for too long on these amendments, which I tabled after conversations, particularly with Radiocentre, about how in-car entertainment systems work. These days, the reality is that an awful lot of people are using those in-car systems by navigating through screens or pressing on their mobile phone, in advance of actually driving the car. I myself tend to use the buttons on my screen when I am listening to stuff in the car.
Nine out of 10 UK adults—a significant proportion—listen to commercial radio or BBC radio every week. That is where a massive number of people get their local news, hear updates on what is going on, and listen to all sorts of genres of music. It is incredibly important for people. Even though in a lot of places we are moving away from cars and taking more public transport, people who use cars generally have some sort of sound on when they are driving. An awful lot of the time that is either commercial radio or BBC radio.
Commercial radio is already highly regulated. The adverts available on commercial radio that can be heard over DAB, for example, are checked. They have to meet high standards, not have false claims in them, and be pre-checked in advance of being broadcast. Radio stations have to ensure that they cover certain genres, although that is set to change as a consequence of this Bill. That makes a huge amount of sense, given the increase in the availability of services and the fact that there are not just one or two radio stations available to listen to and get signal for on AM or FM. There is the whole gamut of digital or internet radio.
We spoke last week about resilience and public reliance on hearing public sector broadcasts. The Minister himself made the point that radio is a good way for people to get updates on things happening in the local area, particularly if there is some sort of emergency. When we were talking about terrestrial television, the Minister made that point clear, and I absolutely agree with him. In the event that there is flooding in a local area, people often tune in to their local stations. In Aberdeen, that is Northsound 1, Original 106, or shmuFM—Station House Media Unit, an excellent community-run radio station. Those are all things people will use to they increase their resilience and ensure that they are aware of any emergencies.
To ensure that this is future-proofed and that the Bill makes sense and works in the way that the Government intend, I have tabled the amendments 42, 43 and 44 in relation to radio selection services, specifically to include non-voice-activated in-car entertainment systems. Not all cars rely on voice activation, and lots of people do not like voice activation; even though 53% of people now have smart speakers, a proportion are still not keen. As someone pointed out to me recently, the level of tolerance in relation to these things is pretty low. When someone says, “Alexa, please could you do this,” and it does not do it, they get frustrated fairly quickly, because the technology does not necessarily behave itself. For various reasons, some people choose to use the physical buttons or the screen selection services. Radiocentre and I believe that those people should also get the service that they are looking for, and that when they press those buttons in the car, they should get whichever radio station they want on whichever player they are looking for. It is important, therefore, that the Government consider this matter and whether something else could be done, particularly in this clause, to ensure that in-car entertainment systems are accessible to the public; to ensure that they are able to find the BBC, or BBC iPlayer if they are streaming through an internet service; and to ensure that they are able to listen to digital radio and to Northsound, if that is what they want to listen to on that morning.
I hope Minister will be able to give me a significant degree of comfort on this and convince me that this is something that the Government are considering and taking account of, something that they recognise is important and that they do expect people to be able to find the radio stations they want.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
A not insignificant amount of listening—around a quarter of all radio listening—still takes place in the car, so it is a really important area for voice activation. It is really important that the Government look closely at this.
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree. It is really important for voice activation. It is also really important for physical activation as well in terms of on-screen navigation, because of that massively high proportion of listening that takes place in the car.
For an awful lot of people, that is the only way that they hear news. They are not listening to the radio to hear news; they are listening to the radio to hear music, but they catch news bulletins on commercial radio. By the way, commercial radio stations put an awful lot of time, effort and journalism hours into ensuring that they have accurate news bulletins and that they are providing updates. For a significant proportion of people, that is the only form of news that they hear, and they hear international and national news as well as local news on those services. Therefore, it is important not just from an entertainment point of view, but from a resilience and an information point of view.
We have talked already about democracy and access to democracy and democratic services. Some people only get those updates from the radio; they only know that a general election has been called because local radio has told them. [Interruption.] Don’t worry, a general election has not been called this morning—I am sure that Government Members would know before I did, anyway. [Interruption.] I am sure that some Government Members would know before I did, anyway.
I would like the Minister to be very clear that he attaches importance to radio and to commercial radio and that he understands the ways that people use it. I would also like him to commit to giving some consideration to how this Bill could be future-proofed to ensure that those screen and button navigations also allow people to get the service that they want and that they do not have to use voice activation. If he can give me that reassurance, I may not push the amendments to a vote.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
As I mentioned on Second Reading, part 6 is one of the most contentious parts of the Media Bill. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee picked up on it immediately and published a dedicated report on the radio clauses prior to its report on the Bill more broadly. The report highlighted issues with the drafting as well as with the content, which I will speak about in more detail as we debate the various aspects of, and additions to, this part. It also expressed full support for the inclusion of measures intended to protect our treasured radio services. I wanted to mention that at the beginning of my remarks.
I have been extremely supportive of radio and the principles of inclusion, but I know that platforms are extremely concerned. A few weeks ago, I hosted a roundtable with radio services and platforms and we had a really constructive discussion about the Bill. It was one of the first times that stakeholders had been invited together to have a discussion, albeit a virtual one. During the discussion, it was clear that platforms were largely happier, albeit to varying degrees, with the latest version of the Bill compared with the draft. That is to the credit of the Committee and the Department, which took seriously the matter of rectifying some of the problems with the Bill while maintaining a commitment to the importance of the part and radio as a whole. I believe the Bill is all the better for it. We are now on a much better footing for discussing some of the remaining issues in the clause. We can focus on the nuances, rather than discussing whether our radio services should be protected.
I therefore approach the amendments today keeping in mind the fact that a good balance has been struck. My overwhelming priority is to ensure that radio services get the protections they have been waiting for. I do not wish to cause any major further disruption to a part of the Bill that has been fine-tuned, to the benefit of both radio and platforms.
To address amendments 42 to 44 specifically, as with the smart speakers explicitly included in the Bill, car entertainment systems are a platform that have the potential to make it hard for users to find radio services. Some sophisticated car entertainment systems, for example, have the ability to preference their own content over radio services, to force users to swipe through pages of options to find their favourite radio station, or indeed to refuse to offer radio, full stop. Radiocentre claims that some recent models of Tesla cars do not have a broadcast radio at all, and though it is theoretically possible to stream radio through an interface on such models, no protections are in place to ensure that that will remain the case in a genuinely accessible and convenient way.
That issue is only more worrying when coupled with the reality that listening via car entertainment systems is on the rise, in particular among younger people. Ofcom reports that 9% of people listen to a streaming service via an in-car system, rising to 19% in the 16-to-24 age group. I therefore ask the Minister why such car systems were not considered for inclusion in the initial definition in the Bill alongside smart speakers. The CMS Committee report said that
“the Government may have overestimated the extent to which listeners are easily able to find their preferred stations in in-car systems.”
I agree with that statement and with the Committee’s recommendation to the Minister and Ofcom that they keep the issue under “close review”.
The Government agreed to that in their response to the Committee report, so how do they actively plan to do it? At what threshold will they consider extending the regime to cars or to any other device that poses similar problems? While I am in favour of exploring the inclusion of car entertainment systems, given the scope in the Bill to extend the regime, I think it is important that any extension is properly consulted on; in particular, car manufacturers themselves will need to be consulted.
Similar to the prominence regime for public service broadcasters, , it is right the Bill should be future-proofed so that new technologies can be accounted for, not just with cars, but further into the future. I hope that the Minister will consider that and will explain with clarity how we can be sure the Bill does enough to protect radio not just in today’s world, but in the years to come.
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)
I apologise to the Committee for croaking a little. I also declare that on Sunday I attended the Jingle Bell ball with Capital Radio, which is organised by Global Media. In between some excellent performances, we talked briefly about the Media Bill.
The hon. Member for Barnsley East described part 6 of the Bill as perhaps one of the more contentious ones, although in fact I think that there is widespread agreement in Committee. On Thursday, we spoke about the importance of radio and how it continues to achieve a significant proportion of listening, despite having been written off a number of times in the past years. Part 6 of the Bill relates to the recognition that the way in which people access radio is changing. We spoke for a bit of time about updating the regime governing broadcast television to take account of the move to digital so, similarly, this part of the Bill is concerned with the fact that a growing proportion of radio listening is done through smart speakers.
The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North relates to cars in particular, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South pointed out, listening to the radio in cars represents a significant proportion of radio listening. Research carried out in 2021 by WorldDAB Forum, which is the international standards and co-ordination body for digital radio, showed that more than 90% of prospective car buyers across a range of international markets say that a broadcast radio tuner should be standard equipment in every car. Research has also found that 82% of potential car buyers say they would be less likely to buy or lease a vehicle that is not equipped with a built-in radio tuner. Consumer demand for new cars to have a radio installed as standard remains powerful.
Kirsty Blackman
I am not aware that I have ever bought a new car, but if I were to, I would probably not think to ask, “Does it have a radio?” I would just assume that it would have a radio, and then I would buy the car and be utterly shocked if I did not have access to radio. Maybe a kind of future-proofing, or at least leaning on the car manufacturers to say, “Radio is really important. Please could you include this?” would be a key way to go forward here.
Sir John Whittingdale
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady about encouraging manufacturers to include a radio. We would be very happy to do that. At the moment, it is almost unheard of not to include a radio—indeed, we encouraged manufacturers to install DAB sets. Older cars had traditional analogue sets, but in 2020 the Government actually brought in regulations to ensure that all radios installed in cars had a DAB tuner. That was a big step along the road to switching radio listening from analogue to digital, and the result now is that virtually all new cars in the UK have a DAB tuner installed, which allows the receipt of a large range of radio stations on the road. As noted by the digital radio and audio review carried out by the Department in 2021, audio and entertainment systems in cars are evolving rapidly, giving opportunities for car manufacturers to develop partnerships to provide or support other types of audio services, whether that is Bluetooth connectivity to connect mobile phones, or integrated systems including those that use or support Amazon, Google or Apple in-car systems.
In the terms of this Bill, part 6 applies to “radio selection services”, and it is device-neutral. While smart speakers represent a significant and growing proportion of radio listening, for the benefit of Members today and for Hansard, I would like to be clear that the term we have used in the legislation is “radio selection service”, through which the provisions could extend to any device with a microphone, including in-car systems that can respond to a spoken command requesting a radio station to be played. While I am sure that we will go on using smart speaker as a short-hand term, it is important to bear in mind that the requirements in part 6 apply to “designated radio selection services”, which is a service used by a significant number of people. We have made clear in new section 362BB that in assessing whether the use of the service is significant, we can consider the context, particularly where the service is used in a vehicle.
Amendments 42 to 44 seek to extend protections for radio into other audio systems provided by car manufacturers, whether these systems are voice controlled or not. However, our approach to developing these provisions has been to assess the potential risk from platforms being able to take a gatekeeper role, and to have targeted and appropriate measures that enable Ofcom to deal with any concerns. Individual systems provided by car manufacturers and which facilitate access to audio services or support this via connectivity links do not provide any way to disrupt access to radio services. We are, however, conscious about the longer-term issue raised with us by UK radio operators that at some point in the future radio might be designed out of cars and other vehicles. We absolutely accept that this would be a very regrettable development and that, given the importance of radio to listeners, we would need to look at it.
Kirsty Blackman
Say that a car manufacturer or a significant number of car manufacturers had a deal with Apple, and that their vehicles played only Apple services, or it was very difficult to find services other than Apple ones. Is that the point at which the Government would begin to look at a change? The relationship between the tech platforms and radio is good—I do not want to give the impression that it is not—but the tech platforms’ potential monopoly or domination of the market is significant, and therefore the risk is there.
Sir John Whittingdale
I completely understand the hon. Lady’s concern, and I will say a little more about our approach to that issue in some detail. Essentially, we recognise that we need to keep a close eye on the issue. At the moment, given the very high level of consumer support, it seems unlikely that the car manufacturers would want to alienate new customers by not having the equipment that car buyers now regard as standard. In our view, a better approach is to support the very effective partnerships between the radio industry and the car industry. An example is Radioplayer, which is a major initiative between the BBC—[Interruption.]
Sir John Whittingdale
I was just saying that the Government’s approach to the issue is to encourage the existing good partnerships between the radio sector and car manufacturers. Radioplayer is an initiative by the BBC and commercial radio that supports the use of common standards and technology, to make it much easier for partner manufacturers to integrate radio into car entertainment systems. The BBC and commercial radio recently announced new investment to expand that work, to support and build Radioplayer in the UK and to continue the development of partnerships across Europe. Radioplayer has partnerships with manufacturers including Volkswagen Group, BMW and Renault, which together represent over 40% of all European car sales, and it recently announced a long-term extension and expansion of its partnership with VW Group’s automated software company. A range of other companies also provide integration services. That prevents car manufacturers from having to bear all the research and development costs as systems develop.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for noting all those car manufacturers. As the representative of Luton North, I would like to include van manufacturers as well, particularly Vauxhall.
Sir John Whittingdale
I have no doubt that van drivers spend as much time listening to the radio as car drivers do, so the hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight vans.
Turning back to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, we believe that existing partnerships are the most effective way forward. However, we still have power to intervene—by, for instance, changing the definition of a radio selection service to include different ways in which radio stations are selected, if a clear need arises in the future. We will continue to support efforts by the radio industry to develop partnerships with car manufacturers, which, as I say, have produced good results. We will also keep these issues under review, as she requests. I hope that will go some way towards reassuring her, and that she is willing to withdraw her amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
I accept and understand the Minister’s reassurances. I am pleased to hear his support for radio, and his understanding of its importance, particularly in relation to car and van use. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 48, page 89, line 21, at end insert—
“(4A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would ensure that regulations which designate and specify descriptions of radio selection services are subject to the affirmative procedure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 33, in clause 48, page 89, line 25, at end insert—
“(5A) Before making regulations under subsection (5), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) persons who appear to the Secretary of State to represent providers of radio selection services;
(b) persons who appear to the Secretary of State to represent providers of internet radio services;
(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State would have to consult before making regulations adding or removing a condition that must be satisfied before a radio selection service may be designated.
Stephanie Peacock
I will speak in much more detail about my support for clause 48, and for protecting radio services, in various other debates on this part of the Bill, but here I will focus on two areas where increased scrutiny is needed, both of which will be important for the integrity of the regime. In the initial drafting of the Bill, there were many areas in which the Government had not incorporated sufficient scrutiny of powers to create secondary legislation. That was picked up by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which made various recommendations to do with strengthening scrutiny requirements and ensuring that power was not concentrated in the hands of the Secretary of State where that was not necessary.
Many of those suggestions were accepted by Government, but in the area of designated radio selection services, the Government chose not to follow the relevant recommendations. Indeed, it is understandable that the Government have chosen not to determine in the Bill which radio selection services will be regulated, and are instead leaving the definition broad, so as to include those that are
“used by a significant number of members of the public”.
That will ensure that the decision on which platforms are in scope can be informed by the recommendations of Ofcom, and that the list can be amended in the future to fit the needs of the regime.
Kirsty Blackman
These amendments would ensure that the regulations were subject to the affirmative procedure when they were first created, and advance consultation on any changes to those regulations. Have I got that correct? If so, I am happy to support the hon. Lady.
Stephanie Peacock
Yes. We understand why the Bill is not prescriptive in setting out designated radio selection services, but if that is to change, there should be further parliamentary scrutiny.
Sir John Whittingdale
On amendment 32, the hon. Lady and I have debated the secondary legislation provided for in this Bill, and in other Bills in the past. In this case, we do not agree that the affirmative procedure is appropriate. As the Bill sets out, the designation of a radio selection service will reflect the fact that it is used by a significant number of people who access radio services. Advice on what level of use is significant, and which services cross that threshold, is a matter for Ofcom in its role as independent regulator.
As is set out in proposed new section 362BB(3) to the Communications Act 2003, the Secretary of State must have received a report from Ofcom before making the relevant designation regulations. The framework for designation is therefore set by this Bill, and advice on which services are used by significant numbers of people will be provided by Ofcom. On receipt of Ofcom’s advice, the Secretary of State must consult with radio selection services and the radio industry, as well as others whom they consider appropriate, in accordance with proposed new section 362BB(4), before coming to a decision. They can disagree with Ofcom’s recommendation, as provided for in proposed new section 362BC(6), but must provide reasons for doing so.
The order-making power relates to orders confirming the Secretary of State’s decision to designate a platform or platforms. The order will be laid before Parliament and follow the negative procedure. We felt that the affirmative procedure, which would trigger a debate in both Houses, was not appropriate, given that the exercise of this power relates to decisions affecting one or more companies. I hope that the hon. Member for Barnsley East will accept that in this case, a negative resolution is sufficient.
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Barnsley East for tabling amendment 33, and I absolutely recognise the intention behind it: to ensure that the Secretary of State consults before making regulations adding, removing or altering a condition that that must be satisfied before a radio selection service may be designated. A similar consultation requirement is imposed by proposed new section 362BB(4) before the Secretary of State can make regulations designating a radio selection service.
I acknowledge that it is reasonable to seek an equivalent requirement with regard to making any changes to the conditions that need to be satisfied before a service may be designated. However, the full impact of the amendment’s wording will need to be looked at by parliamentary counsel. In particular, the hon. Lady’s proposal will need to be considered in the context of subsection (4) of proposed new section 362BB to the Communications Act 2003. I hope that she is willing to withdraw the amendment, on the understanding that the Government will consider the matter further before Report.
Stephanie Peacock
I thought for a moment that the Minister was going to support my amendment. However, I am happy with his explanation, and so am willing not to move amendment 33. On amendment 32, I am afraid that once again we disagree on the statutory instrument, and once again I am not comfortable with the fact that Ofcom’s recommendations can be ignored, with no subsequent debate. For that reason, I will press the amendment to a vote.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 48, page 91, line 26, at end insert
“, or
(b) is a UK on-demand sound service and is provided by the BBC or by a person who holds a licence under Part 3 of the 1990 Act or Part 2 of the 1996 Act.”
This amendment and Amendments 46 and 47 would expand the scope of “internet radio service” to include on-demand and internet only content provided by the BBC or Ofcom-licenced radio stations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 46, in clause 48, page 91, line 33, at end insert—
“(3) In this section a “UK on-demand sound service” means a service whose principal purpose is, or whose principal purposes include, the provision of programmes consisting wholly of sound and which has the following characteristics—
(a) its content is aimed mainly at audiences in the United Kingdom;
(b) access to it is on-demand;
(c) there is a person who has editorial responsibility for it; and
(d) it is made available by that person for use by members of the public (whether or not for payment).”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 45.
Amendment 47, in clause 48, page 91, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 93 and insert—
“362BG Meaning of “relevant internet radio service”
(1) In this Part, “relevant internet radio service” means an internet radio service for the time being included in the list maintained by OFCOM under subsection (2).
(2) OFCOM must establish and maintain an up to date list of the internet radio services in relation to which the condition in subsection (3) is satisfied and their providers.
(3) The condition in this subsection is that the provider of an internet radio service—
(a) has given notice to OFCOM requesting that the service be included in the list, and
(b) has not since then given notice to OFCOM under subsection (4) or (5).
(4) The provider of an internet radio service included in the list may give notice to OFCOM requesting that the service be removed from the list.
(5) The provider of an internet radio service included in the list must give notice to OFCOM if—
(a) that person ceases to be the provider of the service,
(b) that person ceases to be the provider of the UK radio service to which it relates, or
(c) the service ceases to be provided.
(6) A notice given to OFCOM under this section must—
(a) be sent in such manner as OFCOM may require;
(b) contain such information as OFCOM may require.
(7) OFCOM must publish the list on a publicly accessible part of their website.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 45.
Amendment 51, in clause 48, page 92, line 11, after “time” insert
“to a material extent only”.
This amendment would make the definition of an “internet radio service” less restrictive so that it can account for time lags or small differences in output.
New clause 3—Regulation of selection services for on demand and online-only content—
“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations provide for the regulation of selection services for on demand and online-only content equivalent to the regulation of radio selection services provided for by section 48 and Schedule 9 of this Act.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may amend primary legislation.”
Kirsty Blackman
I will be fairly brief. Amendment 45 is about the scope of regulation of the selection services, and about internet radio services, including on-demand and internet-only content provided by the BBC or Ofcom-licensed radio stations.
There are some issues with the definition, given the changing nature of radio and listening; the fact that people listen to services on demand and to internet radio; and the possibility of a time lag between internet or digital radio broadcasting, and broadcasting on analogue services. Some services are in scope only if they are broadcast on digital radio at the same time as being broadcast on the internet. If there is a time lag between the two, then they are not broadcast at the same time—and they may be broadcast only a few seconds apart. I would like clarity from the Minister on whether “at the same time” means “sort of at the same time.” If someone accidentally listens to the radio via two different methods at once, they may find that what is being played is slightly out of sync. I might do that when I move between the car and the house, or move between listening on my mobile phone to listening on my television. I may have different ways of listening to a service.
To be fair, I do not differentiate between listening on the internet and listening to digital audio broadcasting radio. If someone asked me whether what was coming through my car speakers was being streamed through the internet, coming from DAB or on an analogue service, I probably could not say. All I know is that I am listening to Northsound Radio, or BBC Radio Scotland; the method I am using does not make a difference to me.
There is also some stuff here about Ofcom-licensed radio that is broadcast only on the internet. That is also important, because again, people listening to Classic FM have no idea whether the programme is available only on DAB or on the internet. They just know that they are listening to Classic FM. For those people, the definitions do not matter; nor do they matter for licensing. Classic FM and BBC radio are licensed in the same way, through Ofcom, whether people listen to them online or via DAB. They are held to the same standards. The question is therefore whether the Bill does what the Minister and the Government intend: ensure that regulations and protections are in place, whether programmes are broadcast via digital radio, the internet or analogue services.
Stephanie Peacock
I will begin by addressing amendments 45 to 47 and new clause 3, which I tabled. I am disappointed that on-demand and podcast listening appear to have been excluded from the new radio protections. As the BBC points out, it is somewhat unusual that the Government have recognised the need to legislate in the Bill for on-demand TV content, and acknowledge its growing role in people’s viewing habits, yet have neglected to recognise the same patterns emerging for audio content and the rise of podcasts, and are failing to provide appropriate protections as a result. Some 10 million adults listen to podcasts every week, and there are estimates that in just 3 years’ time, there will be more than 28 million podcast listeners in the UK. Likewise, of BBC Sounds’ 417 million plays between October and December 2022, 193 million were on demand. It seems somewhat counterintuitive, therefore, that the Bill tries to protect the future of radio through a clause that does not pay any attention to one of the fastest growing ways of listening to audio.
To use an example provided by Radiocentre, under the current system, a user would be able to tune in to the LBC breakfast show with Nick Ferrari but could not be guaranteed access to the hugely popular podcast “The News Agents”. The same applies to on-demand radio: a user could listen to “World at One” or “Today in Parliament” live, but cannot be sure of catch-up access. Of course, given the breadth of podcasts available, it makes sense that any change might begin with ensuring access to podcasts associated with Ofcom-regulated stations. That would give a reasonable limit, so that platforms are not given the extra burden of onboarding a number of unregulated services that are not already within scope of the Bill. However, given the popularity of podcasts and the Government’s intention to protect valuable UK audio content, excluding podcasts altogether seems like missing a huge opportunity. I hope that the Minister understands that that is a contradiction, and will lend his support to some of the amendments.
My new clause 3, and amendments 45 to 47, make very similar requests of the Government on this topic, though new clause 3 is less prescriptive. If the Minister chooses not to support these amendments, it would at least be a good opportunity for him to explain why podcast services have been excluded. I point out again that the last chance we had to create media legislation was 20 years ago. What if another opportunity does not arise for 20 years? Does he not think that it will seem rather out of place for there to be no protection for on-demand audio content? Many measures in the Bill were crafted specifically to allow for future-proofing and a forward-looking vision. This is one area where such a vision has unfortunately been lacking, and I hope to rectify that through the amendments, with the support and co-operation of the Committee; I know that many of its members are in agreement with me on this.
On amendment 51, there have been various concerns, during the Bill’s formation, about the definition of an internet radio service, and the reference to programmes being provided in the same way and at the same time as the broadcast service. I am therefore glad that since the draft Bill, tweaks have been made to ensure that adverts are disregarded when it comes to considering whether a programme is being provided at the same time as a broadcast service. That change will have come as a great relief to providers of radio services that rely on a certain level of customisation when it comes to adverts. However, I know that Radiocentre and others still have concerns that the Bill does not account for minor differences in output, or time lags. Will a small difference, such as a time lag between a broadcast and an online radio station’s output, be considered a breach of the definition, and exclude a station from being designated as an internet radio service? At the very least, I hope that that was not the intention of the wording. It is important to clarify that explicitly in the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
I understand the intention behind the amendments, but the purpose of the Bill is to protect the public value of live licensed radio, as secured within the regulatory framework. The effect of the measure proposed by the hon. Member for Barnsley East would extend the scope of the regime to content that, notwithstanding its source, is unregulated. That would significantly broaden the scope of the legislation and risk placing disproportionate burdens on the platforms, as well as potentially delaying the implementation of the regime by Ofcom. It would also exclude similar content produced by independent producers and distributed as podcasts.
The hon. Lady raised the issue that Nick Ferrari’s show on LBC might fall within the regulatory framework, but that Jon Sopel and Emily Maitlis might fall outside it. The effect of the hon. Lady’s proposal would be to bring “The News Agents” within the scope of the framework, because it is produced by Global, but “The Rest is Politics” with Rory Stewart and Mr Campbell would be outside the regulatory framework because it is produced by Goalhanger and is therefore not captured by the measure.
Andy Carter
I want to set out where I think there may be problems. Historically, many radio stations have created what is called “split content”. That could be during ad breaks, for example—if someone is listening on FM, they would hear one set of adverts, but if they are listening on AM, they would hear a different set of adverts. In the situation where a radio station decides to broadcast a set of adverts on FM—perhaps a local set of adverts aimed at Warrington—but decides to put national adverts on its internet streaming platform, because it is heard all over the UK, there would be two very different programmes going out for two or three minutes. That is where there is some concern about different content for a period of time; while it is being broadcast live, different content is inserted into the stream. That is somewhere where there is slight confusion.
Sir John Whittingdale
I understand the point that my hon. Friend is getting at, but the provisions of the Bill are about live radio, and I think that the example he gave would be captured, because it is still live radio. The provision relates to non-live radio in the form of podcasts. I take the point that my hon. Friend makes, and I am happy to follow it up with a bit more detail, if that would be helpful.
As I said, the purpose of the Bill is about live radio, which remains the main way in which audio content is consumed. The Government committed, in their response to the digital radio and audio review, to revisiting those issues.
Kirsty Blackman
We understand that public service broadcasters, whether they are providing that public service on radio or television, should have a commensurate level of prominence. Does the Minister not agree that those people who have gone through the hoops to be Ofcom-licensed should have more prominence? That is partly the idea behind the amendments on licensing the “The News Agents” podcast, for example. It is produced by someone who has gone through the hoops to get those Ofcom licenses, whereas the other podcast—I forget its name—
Kirsty Blackman
“The Rest is Politics” would not be licensed, on the basis that its producers have not jumped through those hoops to meet the standards required to get Ofcom licensing.
Sir John Whittingdale
But the podcast is not subject to the regulatory requirements. It is absolutely the case that “The News Agents” is produced by a broadcaster that holds an Ofcom license, but that does not mean that the requirements of the licence apply to the content of the podcast.
Sarah Owen
Does the Minister not find it slightly perverse that the top-billing podcast, “The Rest is Politics”, which is the most listened-to podcast, is not subject to the requirements, yet one that is not the most listened to is subject to the requirements?
Sir John Whittingdale
Under the terms of the Bill, neither of them will be. The purpose of the Bill is to extend the regulatory regime to cover live radio, in whichever format it is consumed, but I do not think that podcasts—I am depressed to hear that “The Rest is Politics” is the top podcast on the charts, but there is no accounting for taste—should be subject to regulation, despite high listener numbers. As I say, we are happy to keep the matter under review, and the Bill allows for the amendment of relevant definitions. On the basis of that assurance, I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North will be willing to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 51 relates to the definition of “corresponds” in proposed new section 362BG(4). I recognise the amendment’s intention, and it is correct to say that there may sometimes be a very small difference between when an internet radio service is received by a listener and when the corresponding licensed broadcast service is received. That is why proposed new section 362BG(4) refers to when programmes are broadcast and provided by the station, rather than when they are received. It is not the Government’s intention for stations to fall out of scope of the protections because of very small discrepancies.
In any event, we consider that it is clear that very minor time-lags of up to a few seconds are not to be interpreted as not being “at the same time”, and we expect Ofcom to interpret the provision accordingly. However, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North has raised an important issue as to whether minor differences in output between versions of substantially the same programming should be allowed and, if so, whether the provision could be amended in a workable way. We are happy to consider the issue further with the industry and Ofcom. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press her amendment.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Barnsley East for tabling new clause 3, and we recognise its intention, which is to ensure that listeners can access a wide range of audio content on their connected devices. The provisions in part 6 of the Bill are being put in place to protect the public value of live, licensed UK radio. Although the options available to listeners have grown over recent years and will continue to do so, live radio remains the main way in which audio content produced by broadcasters is consumed. The provisions also reflect the fact that the regulatory framework that is in place for BBC, commercial and community radio services secures the ongoing provision of their public value content.
The new clause would extend the scope of the regime to unregulated content. At this stage, without a fuller understanding of the online audio market, it would risk significantly broadening the scope of the Bill. In particular, it would place disproportionate burdens on the platforms, without a clear means to ensure that the regime protects content that is of public value. In addition, it may risk significantly delaying the implementation of the regime. For those reasons, we cannot accept the new clause, and I hope that the hon. Lady will consider not pressing it.
Kirsty Blackman
I accept the Minister’s reassurances on amendment 51. His comment on the small time delay is helpful and clarifies the intention of the Bill. His clarification to the Committee is incredibly helpful. I also appreciate his making clear that he would be keen to work with Ofcom, Radiocentre and other interested parties on how the provisions could be improved, if they could. I hope that both Ofcom and Radiocentre hear that, and can put the case to the Minister about the potential for improvement. I understand that the Minister is keen to get the Bill right, and for it to work as intended.
I want to follow up the point that the shadow Minister made about the asymmetry between on-demand services—the fact that on-demand radio services are not within the scope of the Bill but on-demand television services are. If I want to listen to Radio 5 Live’s “Wake Up to Money”, I either have to get up at 5 o’clock in the morning, which is not my favourite thing to do, or I can listen to it on demand, which I did fairly regularly for a number of years. I would expect the same protections for that service as for watching “Question Time” the next day. It is reasonable for members of the public to assume that the same regulations apply. They are both BBC programmes that were broadcast live. I was probably not awake to see both, because I do not stay up for “Question Time”—I very much love staying in my bed for as long as possible.
I should be able to catch up with those programmes on demand, and it makes sense for them to have prominence as public service broadcasts. If I ask Alexa to play “Desert Island Discs” from Sunday, I expect it to play “Desert Island Discs” from Sunday, not the best of “Desert Island Discs” or a particularly popular episode from last year. In the same way, I would expect today’s “Wake Up to Money”, not last week’s episode, Sunday’s round-up or whatever else.
The asymmetry will be confusing for members of the public, who expect the same level of protection, particularly for BBC services, because people have a huge amount of respect for and attachment to the BBC, as well as other public service broadcasters. The BBC is paid for by the licence fee and there is the charter; there are many reasons why it sits so highly in people’s hearts and minds. Why is there therefore not the same protection for television and radio on-demand services, at least for things that were broadcast live and can be considered repeats? I have included the BBC alongside the Ofcom-licenced services in the amendments because it often plays repeats or on-demand versions of programmes that were broadcast live on the radio, although that does not apply to some of the podcasts.
I plan to press amendment 45 to a vote, and the Minister will have an opportunity to speak again if he wishes. I would appreciate it if he took into account the fact that members of the public will not understand the difference between the television and radio requirement, and may be poorly served if they are not able to access the on-demand services they want. Will he commit to consider at least the repeats issue—I class it as repeats, because that is the conversation that we had when we discussed on-demand television services and meeting the public service broadcast requirements? Essentially, that is what a chunk of the Bill is about. Even if we were to remove things that are not broadcast live, such as “The News Agents” podcast, and take into account only things that are broadcast by either the BBC or Ofcom-licenced radio live and then played afterwards on catch-up, people would be able to access the services they want with the protection they want. When they say, “Alexa, please could you play ‘Desert Island Discs’ from Sunday?” they expect to get “Desert Island Discs” from Sunday, rather than something totally unrelated or something like the best of “Desert Island Discs”, which is clearly not what they wanted to listen to at that moment in time.
Sir John Whittingdale
To some extent, the question is where we draw the line. The Bill is about live radio. The hon. Lady has put forward a different category of programming, so we now have three additional categories.
We have the category of what was live programming, which is available on a catch-up, on-demand basis. She gave the example of “Desert Island Discs”, but other examples are “The News Quiz” and various programmes that have gone out in recent days which people want to listen to a little bit later. We then have the category of programming that is not being broadcast live, but is nevertheless produced by a licensed broadcaster—“The News Agents” is an example. We also have the category of programming that is not produced by a licensed broadcaster, which extends into the world of podcasts, of which there are potentially millions. I think it would be extremely difficult to move that into a category of licensing. It is a question of where we draw the line, and the Government felt that the clause addresses a particular challenge, which is to protect live radio from the platforms taking advantage by either charging or replacing ads and so on.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate what the Government are saying about drawing the line, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that that leaves us with a contradiction between audio and visual? For a Bill that is aiming to future-proof, it fails to do that.
Sir John Whittingdale
The regime that the Bill introduces for TV public service broadcasting has slightly different objectives from the regime that we are introducing for radio. In the case of radio, as we have debated, it is much more to do with ensuring that things like advertising are still supplied by the broadcaster, rather than being replaced by the platform, so that, for instance, there is no possibility of the platforms charging radio stations. They are slightly different objectives. It could always be said that there are distinct differences between the regime for audio and the regime for visual, and I think that is going to be inevitable. As I say, this is something where consumer habits are changing and we will of course keep the matter under review. There are powers to make amendments, should they prove necessary in future.
Kirsty Blackman
To be fair, the third category that the Minister mentioned is not something that I brought up. It is something that he has included as a category—not me. I am still clear that there is asymmetry between the on-demand services. I understand that he is trying to protect access to live radio, and I get that. Surely the Bill is also trying to protect access to live TV? It is trying to protect access to public service broadcast.
The Minister and the Government have agreed and understood that people are watching live TV on catch-up. They are saying that a broadcaster’s public service obligations can include on-demand services because of the number of people that are watching television on catch-up. It is exactly the same with radio. I do not understand how he can suggest that the line be drawn where it has been. To me, protecting live radio and live television means protecting access to those on-demand and catch-up services for the same programmes that someone would be listening to on demand.
Andy Carter
I am fairly sympathetic to what the hon. Lady is saying, although I have to say that there is a slight difference, as there is no provision in the Bill for public service elements of a licence to be delivered through on-demand services. There is a difference, I am afraid, and I think the Minister is right in that respect.
Kirsty Blackman
There is provision for public service elements of television to be delivered through on-demand services in the Bill. I do not see why people would not understand that there is the same benefit in accessing this stuff on demand. On radio programming, whether I listen to “Wake Up to Money” at 5 am or 3 pm, I am still getting the same public service benefit from listening to that. I can understand why the BBC, when it is having charter negotiations, might be saying, “We produce this programme, however many people listen to it at the time. Many people listen to it on catch-up, so this is part of the public service benefit and public service good that we provide for the licence fee as part of our charter obligations and as part of our relationship with the Government and with the general public.”
Turning to the amendments that I have tabled, there possibly are different amendments that could have a similar effect on on-demand services and catch-up. I would appreciate some flexibility from the Minister. I understand that the Government are trying to legislate for live radio, but they have chosen to draw an arbitrary line. It would be better if the line were slightly further over than it is. We will have to disagree, so I would like to press amendment 45 to a vote.
The Chair
Before we vote on amendment 45, may I check Stephanie Peacock’s intentions for new clause 3?
Stephanie Peacock
It depends somewhat on what happens with the amendment; I know the vote will come later. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North made the case in some detail and, in my intervention, I also made the case on this contradiction. I completely accept that there is a slight difference between audio and visual content, but, again, I am concerned about the lack of future-proofing. My intentions therefore depend somewhat on this vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 48, page 93, leave out lines 26 to 28.
This amendment would remove the proposed new section 362BH(4), which provides for powers that could in future prohibit or restrict radio stations from levying charges on voice assistant platforms.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 52, in clause 48, page 94, line 27, leave out
“the provider of the selected service agrees”,
and insert
“requested by the provider of the selected service”.
This amendment would clarify that pre-roll advertising would only be allowed if it is something the radio provider has requested.
Amendment 48, in clause 48, page 95, line 3, at end insert—
“(5A) The provider of a radio selection service must provide providers of internet radio services, at their request, with effective, high-quality, continuous and real-time access to, and use of, aggregated and non-aggregated data, including personal data (subject to subsection (7)), that is provided for or generated in the context of the use of the relevant radio selection services by users.
(5B) For the purposes of the personal data referred to in subsection (5A), providers of radio selection services must provide for such access to, and use of, personal data only where the data are directly connected with the services offered by the relevant provider of internet radio services through the relevant radio selection services.”
This amendment and Amendment 49 would require designated radio selection services to provide radio stations with effective, high quality and real time access to user data that is generated by listeners of those stations.
Amendment 49, in clause 48, page 95, line 7, after “(4)” insert “or (5A)”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 48.
Amendment 53, in clause 48, page 95, line 12, at end insert
“or impose any other conditions which would have the same effect”.
This amendment would strengthen the “no charging” provision on voice assistant platforms so that it covers non-financial charges that they could levy on radio stations.
Kirsty Blackman
It is me again, with further amendments on radio.
Amendment 50 would remove the powers that could, in future, prohibit or restrict radio stations from levying charges on voice assistant platforms, which is not unreasonable. I will not say too much about it, as it pretty much speaks for itself.
Amendment 48 concerns designated radio stations and data. It is particularly important for the BBC but also for commercial radio platforms. There is no form of consistent or coherent legislative or regulatory ability for radio services to access high-quality aggregated or non-aggregated data about listeners. Particularly for the BBC, accessing that data and being able to prove how many people are listening to radio services is difficult when none of the platforms has any requirement to provide it. I understand commercial sensitivities and why platforms would like to keep the data and not share it, or at least why they would be uncertain about sharing it, but public service obligations require these organisations to understand the data they receive so that they can make sure that they reach the audiences they wish to reach. If Radio 5 Live is mostly listened to through tech platforms rather than through radios, how can the BBC say how many people are listening to it? How can it understand what its listeners want if it is not able to access data on how many people are really enjoying listening to “Wake Up to Money” or BBC Radio Scotland’s “Sportsound”. If it does not have the flexibility and the ability to access data, it cannot put on the programmes that people really want. It cannot move and change with changing listener habits and cannot ensure that the general public are provided with the best possible services.
With commercial radio stations, it is slightly different. Obviously, they want to appeal to their audiences, but they have to be able to make the case to advertisers about how many people are listening to their services. They have to be able to access some of the data to see who it is that they are appealing to and who is listening to their services. If a shop sells lots of clothing, it will keep an eye on how much clothing is sold—what is selling, what is doing well—and it will buy less of the stuff that is not doing well. The amendment simply asks for a level of parity to some of the information available.
Andy Carter
There is something really interesting around data sharing, particularly for a commercial station’s audience. Commercial stations sell advertising based on the number of ears listening. If all of the data is controlled by the platforms and there is no way for radio stations to access that data, the ability for a commercial operator to continue to sell advertising is significantly limited. Where we have operated previously in a linear environment, diaries placed in people’s homes provide a certain level of data. But the ability for online services to provide much more transparency around the audiences that they deliver is controlled by a third party, and that becomes incredibly dangerous and difficult. So I think there is something in data sharing that we should perhaps consider. The issue also exists for many other forms of media as well. It is similar for TV, for example—it is not just limited to radio.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. It is not just limited to radio, but the BBC has control over iPlayer and can see how many people are viewing it, whereas it has much less control and understanding in relation to things streamed through tech platforms. We cannot stream BBC programmes other than through the iPlayer, but its radio programmes can be streamed other than through BBC Sounds.
To give a level of reassurance on the data sharing, it is not about sharing personal data that people do not consent to being shared. If we set up a new mobile phone, for example, it asks if we are willing to share data and information. I would ask for data sharing to happen only for people who have consented to their data being shared, which a lot of people do.
Lastly, I want to touch on amendment 52, which is about pre-roll advertising. The amendment would clarify that pre-roll advertising would be allowed only if it is something that the radio provider had requested. I think that is the direction that the Minister and the Government are going in, anyway, but we need clarification about pre-roll advertising because I would like the provider of the selected service to agree to it.
We have mentioned already the basis on which commercial radio is run, how advertising pays for commercial radio and how it is able to produce its services and sell them because it can provide adverts that are relevant to people. If every time we listen to Classic FM, we get an advertisement that Classic FM has not consented to, we might end up in a situation where people say, “I don’t want to listen to 30 seconds of adverts. I will just listen to something else.” It should be Classic FM that is making that choice, not the tech services through which it is being streamed. Radio providers should be the ones making the decisions, because it should be their judgment whether it is worth playing those 30 seconds of advertising, whether that will turn people off, and whether it is the right commercial choice to include it in their service. It should be the providers’ choice, rather than that of the tech platforms. Amendment 52 relates specifically to that.
Stephanie Peacock
All the amendments in this group refer to the relationship between internet radio stations and radio selection services. As I have mentioned previously, striking the right balance between the two groups will be integral to the success of the regime as a whole. It is with that in mind that I will address amendments 48 and 49 together, before looking at amendments 52, 50 and 53.
On amendments 48 and 49, data is among the, or possibly the most, highly valued assets in our modern, tech-forward society. I am well aware of that, having served as shadow Minister for Data not too long ago and, having sat opposite the Minister for a lengthy discussion on the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, I know he is too.
Data is key to innovation, unlocking benefits for users and growing an organisation more broadly. It is also crucial for creating the mutually beneficial advertising partnerships on which commercial radio naturally relies, alongside many of our other creative industries. I realise the vital importance of radio stations being able to access data for their audiences, regardless of the fact that such audiences might be listening through a smart speaker. I therefore appreciate the intent of amendments 48 and 49, which seek to ensure designated radio selection services provide stations with user data.
It was my understanding, however, that the need for data was one of the primary reasons for including preferred routes as part of the clause. Indeed, the BBC told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that
“having the ability to play out through our preferred service means that we then get that data to allow us to improve our services. That is why it is such an important provision that should remain in the Bill”.
I am therefore keen to understand from the Minister whether it is his understanding that the requirement for smart speakers to provide a service through a preferred route inherently includes a guarantee that data will be accessible to radio stations as a result. If not, I hope the Minister can take on board what the amendments are trying to achieve and provide us with a comprehensive reassurance that radio stations will have access to user data as they deserve.
I turn to amendment 52. Unlike the draft version of the Bill, the published version signals that pre-roll advertising might be allowed, subject to the agreement of a station. That means that an advert or branded message of the smart speaker’s choosing could play on a smart speaker before the requested radio station begins playing. That is one of a number of changes from the draft version that I believe has helped alleviate some of the strong concerns tech platforms held about this part of the Bill.
On the other hand, Radiocentre, which represents commercial radio, has worries about the new addition. In particular, it cites the difference in bargaining power that radio stations may have in comparison with a tech firm, fearing that may result in the phrase “subject to the agreement of a station” being abused through effective coercion. That would effectively mean that radio stations are forced to take on adverts before their content starts playing.
I understand the concern and am supportive of the way the part as a whole has sought to redress the power imbalance between radio and platforms and secure a healthy future partnership between the two. However, I hope that Ofcom’s ability to enforce the regime more broadly as a result of the Bill will provide protections against abuse of the system, so long as Ofcom is appropriately empowered. There should be protections against any situation where a radio station is forced to allow a pre-roll advertisement against its will.
Can the Minister confirm whether the Bill does enough to ensure that will be the case and provide assurances that the protections for radio stations to refuse will be properly enforced? If he can—and I hope he will—I believe the amendment may not be necessary. After all, it is hard to imagine a situation where a radio provider would freely request a pre-roll advertisement, and I worry that, as a result, the amendment may have the counterintuitive effect of disrupting tech platforms’ precarious acceptance of the part more generally in its published version, compared with its draft.
Amendment 50 seeks to remove the restriction that would mean radio stations cannot charge smart speakers for their services. Conversely, amendment 53 seeks to extend the equivalent restriction on platforms to cover non-financial charges. It is my understanding that the premise of the relevant sections of the Bill is quite simple: to ensure that neither party charges the other. That seems fair to me, as it applies both ways. Can the Minister confirm whether this part looks to ensure that neither radio services nor smart speakers can charge the other when carrying out their duties under this part? If that is the case, any change to that arrangement, as sought by these amendments, may cause an unfair imbalance where it is currently an equal measure.
However, by way of reassurance for radio services that may be concerned about their bargaining power, I hope that the Minister will outline explicitly the protections in place throughout the Bill to ensure that the regime will be enforced with integrity. It is, of course, important that radio stations can be carried by platforms regardless of any power imbalance, and without having to face any unnecessary charges or burdens. That will provide certainty for radio stations and clarity for platforms, both of which need to accept and understand of the regime if it is to work as intended.
Sir John Whittingdale
I will start with amendment 50. As the hon. Member for Barnsley East has set out, the whole purpose of the regime we are putting in place is to ensure that the provision of live radio via smart speakers or similar devices is not monetised by either party and that there are protections for radio stations from having to sadly face charges imposed on them by platforms. At the moment, we agree that it is very unlikely that a station would be in a position to extract charges from a platform; the reverse is the case. However, in the widespread consultation we had—the hon. Lady has also referred to the discussions she has had with platforms—it was felt that nevertheless there did need to be some fall-back protection in place. If the hon. Lady’s proposed amendments were to be made, there would be no ability for the regime to be updated in the future, were the market to develop in such a way as to make it a realistic prospect. We think it is important to have that safeguard power should we one day encounter a situation where radio stations sought to extract charges from a platform.
Any exercise of the power within the Bill is subject to consultation, as set out in proposed new section 362BH to the Communications Act 2003, and it would also need to be approved by each House through the affirmative procedure. We nevertheless think the power is an important one, and I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Barnsley East will consider not pressing her amendment.
Turning to amendment 52, we do not think there is a need to change the wording of the current provision. There are a number of ways through which a station can reach its listeners via their connected devices. They can do so directly, through the use of a service operated by the platform; there are, in particular, means such as the Amazon Alexa radio skills kit, which offers an extremely effective way—particularly for small stations—to provide their content via the internet. Some of the aggregators, such as Global Player or BBC Sounds, act as a portal through which a number of different stations provided by the same operator can be made available. Others, such as TuneIn, bring together a range of different stations from different providers.
It will be for each station to decide the option that best fits its needs and to take advantage of the protections offered by the Bill. Some of those options may involve the inclusion of a short period of advertising before the radio station is played. However, the provisions in proposed new section 362BI are clear that advertising cannot be imposed on a station—it must be agreed to. This will ensure there remains scope for mutually beneficial arrangements, while ensuring that radio maintains control over the content that reaches its listeners. For that reason, I do not think the amendment, as the hon. Member for Barnsley East suggests, is necessary.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate the argument the Minister is making, and I did not really want to interrupt, but for clarity, these amendments are in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, not mine.
Sir John Whittingdale
I do apologise. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was endorsing them, but I will direct my remarks particularly to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North.
Stephanie Peacock
If the Minister was listening to my speech, he would know that I am more sympathetic to his position than to that of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, but it is a fine balance between both the platforms and the radio.
Sir John Whittingdale
And indeed a fine balance between the Government and the SNP. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying her position; I direct my remarks particularly to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North.
The Government absolutely recognise the intention behind amendments 48 and 49, but we do not think it appropriate to include such provisions within the Bill. We absolutely acknowledge that it would be of benefit to radio stations to be assured of access to listener data above and beyond the data that radio stations collect themselves, from monitoring their own streams or from surveys such as those by Radio Joint Audience Research. The provisions in the Bill are being put in place to address issues specific to radio, namely securing BBC and Ofcom-licensed commercial and community stations’ ability to access their listeners. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South made clear, the issues raised in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North could apply across a wide range of sectors and are therefore more appropriately addressed in the context of the Government’s wider work on competition in digital markets.
I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North will, to some extent, be reassured by the provisions in proposed new section 362BI that allow radio stations to nominate a preferred route for their service to be delivered to listeners, provided that the route is not unduly burdensome for the platform to deliver. I take the point from the hon. Member for Barnsley East about the importance that some stations attach to the ability to designate a preferred route. These measures do provide scope for a route through which—subject to a listener’s consent, for example through logging in—a broadcaster may be able to access valuable data to enable it to further improve its service. For those reasons, we do not support the amendment; I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North will not press it.
In addressing amendment 53, it may be helpful to set out the context of the overall regime. At the moment, platforms and radio stations both benefit from carriage: the platforms provide radio with another way to reach its audiences, and listening to radio is one of the main reasons why people buy devices such as smart speakers. At this stage, there is no evidence to suggest that the platforms are seeking to charge stations for access, but as more and more listening shifts online, there is a risk that the balance will shift in favour of the platforms, creating an economic incentive for them to monetise the content to which they provide access.
Proposed new section 362BI will address the issue by limiting the scope for platforms to use their position to monetise the carriage of radio in the future. In the event that they seek to do so in ways that might not be covered by these provisions, or indeed by the ongoing work within Government on competition in digital markets, the new provisions will provide the Secretary of State with powers to intervene. In particular, proposed new section 362BP(2) will enable the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations
“about the terms and conditions that may be offered by the provider of a radio selection service to the provider of a relevant internet radio service for or in connection with the use of the service to access the relevant internet radio service”
and
“about the charges that may be imposed by the provider of a radio selection service”.
On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North will not press her amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the Minister for that. I make it clear that there is not a fine line between the two parties; there is a gaping chasm. However, in relation to the Bill, I think we are largely pointing in the same direction.
Kirsty Blackman
On almost every issue we have raised, there have been slight differences between us and the Government, but we are generally happy with the direction in which they are going. I am only disappointed that it has taken 20 years to get to a Media Bill, and I am very keen for the next Media Bill to come more quickly, because things are changing very quickly. The need for changes in legislation to keep up with the changing shape of our world will come more quickly than in 20 years’ time. I made exactly the same case during the passage of the Online Safety Act 2023. It should have been created when I was first using the internet in the early ’90s, rather than waiting until 2022 or 2023.
Sir John Whittingdale
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 48, page 102, line 11, after “service” insert
“, or—
(b) a person who was but is no longer a provider of a relevant internet radio service,”.
This amendment and Amendment 13 enable OFCOM to give a provisional notice of contravention to a former provider of a relevant internet radio service.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 13 to 15.
Clause stand part.
Schedule 9.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am grateful to hon. Members for their participation in this debate on part 6, which is an important part of the Bill. It is based on the findings of the digital radio and audio review, taking account of the way in which radio listening is changing, as we have discussed, and in particular the awareness of platforms acting as a gatekeeper with the potential ability to direct listeners away from UK radio content towards other services, such as their own music playlists or third-party services that have paid for prominence or that seek to leverage value in charges.
Our published impact assessment sets out how the economic relationship between stations and platforms will change as an increased share of listening moves online. That shift will increase the economic incentive for platforms with a significant share of radio listening to seek to monetise the carriage of radio services, for example through requiring radio to give up a fixed share of advertising inventory. The ability of UK radio to continue to deliver public value to its listeners would be endangered if platforms were able to do so effectively.
The purpose of these provisions in the Bill is to put in place a targeted package of measures that will require the major platforms to ensure that UK radio stations remain available to their listeners on request, and that will prevent those platforms from inserting or overlaying their own content, such as advertising or charging for access. This will ensure that UK radio remains accessible to listeners on their connected audio devices, while providing scope for innovative collaboration and partnerships between stations and platforms.
The measures do not go as far as those proposed in the digital radio and audio review. For example, they do not include measures on access to data transparency of algorithms or self-preferencing of services. Those are wider cross-sectoral issues and, as such, are more appropriately addressed through the wider work that is ongoing within Government relating to competition in digital markets.
The measures in this Bill focus on broadcast radio. Internet-only radio-like services and other online audio are not within the scope of the Bill. Our priority is to protect the public value of radio services that are subject to oversight and sanction from Ofcom, for example through the broadcasting code. We have also listened carefully to the practical concerns issued by the tech platforms during consideration of the draft Bill. We have made a number of changes to ensure that the effect of the measures is reasonable and proportionate while reflecting the policy intention to secure radio’s position in the long term as it continues to transition from an analogue to a digital future.
The provisions inserting proposed new sections 362BA to 362BE into the Communications Act 2003 therefore provide a framework for the identification of “radio selection services”—the voice-activated software underpinning connected audio devices—and then the process by which such services can be designated. The significance of voice activation is that, in large part, it enables platforms to take on a gatekeeper role; it is often the voice assistant intermediary through which listeners may be directed away from radio. It will be for Ofcom to consult and to advise the Secretary of State on which platforms should be designated.
The provisions in proposed new sections 362BF to 362BH set out that the live online streams of BBC and licensed commercial and community stations will be able to receive the protections set out under the regime, provided that those streams correspond to the station’s broadcast service and that the station has opted in to the regime. The protections do not extend to on-demand content produced by stations, or to other unregulated online-only content. We recognise that the audio market, and listening habits, will continue to evolve, so the provisions in proposed new section 362BH allow for amendment of the relevant definitions, which will allow this regime to keep pace with that evolution. [Interruption.] It is not that dramatic! Proposed new section 362BH also includes a specific reference to stations seeking to charge the platforms for provision of their services. Although, as I have said, there is no evidence to date of stations being in a position to do this, the provision recognises that potential risk and clarifies our expectation that the carriage of radio services should not be monetised by either party.
Proposed new section 362BI sets out the duties that will be imposed on designated radio selection services in relation to those radio stations that are within scope of the regime. It will be supported by the code of practice prepared by Ofcom in accordance with the Bill. The first duty, set out in subsection (1), essentially says that when a listener asks for a radio station, they should receive that station. The second duty is that the station should not be interrupted; while brief identifications or pre-roll adverts are permitted, once the station is up and running it must be allowed to continue. The third duty is the default route protection. The fourth duty is that stations must not be charged for the provision of their live services. Finally, the intention is not to prevent a user from setting their own preferences, where available, or using the device for other means.
Government amendments 12 and 13 are technical amendments to correct a drafting omission in proposed new section 362BS, which deals with provisional notices of contravention that Ofcom may issue to enforce requirements. The new provision covers only former providers of radio selection services; it does not cover former providers of a relevant internet radio service. Unless the amendments are agreed to, it will not be possible for Ofcom to issue a provisional notice of contravention to a former provider of a relevant internet radio service. The amendments deal with an obvious gap in the enforcement mechanisms; I hope, with this explanation, that hon. Members can support them.
Government amendments 14 and 15 are also technical, and will correct a drafting omission. I hope that they will similarly be supported.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Mike Wood.)
11.24 am
Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.
Criminal Justice Bill (First sitting)
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I have a couple of preliminary announcements. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to them. Please switch off any electronic devices or turn them to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings—only water please. Date Time Witness Tuesday 12 December Until no later than 9.55 am National Police Chiefs’ Council Tuesday 12 December Until no later than 10.40 am National Crime Agency; Crown Prosecution Service Tuesday 12 December Until no later than 11.25 am Victims Commissioner for England and Wales; Until no later than 11.25 am Tuesday 12 December Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales Tuesday 12 December Until no later than 2.45 am Resolve; Crest Advisory Tuesday 12 December Until no later than 3.30 pm College of Policing; HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary and HM Chief Inspector of Fire and Rescue Services Tuesday 12 December Until no later than 3.50 pm Dame Vera Baird DBE KC Tuesday 12 December Until no later than 4.10 pm Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation Tuesday 12 December Until no later than 4.30 pm Law Commission of England and Wales Thursday 14 December Until no later than 11.55 am Police Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales Thursday 14 December Until no later than 12.40 pm Local Government Association; Association of Police and Crime Commissioners Thursday 14 December Until no later than 1 pm Prison Officers Association Thursday 14 December Until no later than 2.20 pm Kennedy Talbot KC Thursday 14 December Until no later than 3.05 pm Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers; Co-operative Group Limited; British Retail Consortium Thursday 14 December Until no later than 3.25 pm Clare Wade KC
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take these matters formally. I first call the Minister or the Whip to move the programme motion, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
“1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 12 December) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 12 December;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 14 December;
(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 11 January;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 16 January;
(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 18 January;
(f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 23 January;
(g) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 25 January;
(h) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 30 January;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 7, Schedule 1, Clauses 8 to 13, Schedule 2, Clauses 14 to 20, Schedule 3, Clauses 21 to 32, Schedule 4, Clause 33, Schedule 5, Clauses 34 to 68, Schedule 6, Clause 69, Schedule 7, Clauses 70 and 71, Schedule 8, Clauses 72 to 79, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00pm on Tuesday 30 January.”—(Chris Philp.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Chris Philp.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Chris Philp.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and will be circulated to Members by email. We will now sit in private to discuss lines of questioning.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and proceedings are being broadcast. Before we hear from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make any declarations of interest in connection with this Bill? No, okay.
We will now hear oral evidence from Chief Constable Gavin Stephens. Mr Stephens, you are very welcome. Thank you for joining us as Chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For this panel, we have until 9.55 am. Would the witness introduce themselves for the record?
Chief Constable Stephens: Good morning, Committee. My name is Gavin Stephens. I am chief constable and chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: As you say, we have been doing a great deal of work in trying to strengthen the misconduct processes to ensure that those who have no place in policing are removed from the service with some speed and vigour. We welcome the additional provisions in this Bill to strengthen, in particular, the role of chief constables to have a say in who should be employed within policing. This is fundamentally an employment process. In particular, we welcome the addition to allow chief constables to have a route of appeal on decisions that, at the moment, could only be done through judicial review, so we welcome that additional measure as well.
Alex Norris
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: We are very pleased with the progress that has been made. We see no need at this point in time for any additional provisions. The broader point perhaps is, in the service, we have been doing a great deal of work to ensure that we get the right colleagues entering and, where necessary, leaving the service. Our focus now is beyond the provisions of this Bill about professional standards throughout somebody’s vocation and career and what we do to transform the culture of policing.
Alex Norris
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: In broad terms, we welcome the antisocial behaviour provisions. There is clearly a great deal of detail in the Bill, and we have a short period of time. If it would assist the Committee, I am happy to do a written submission after this morning with some more detailed comments on the whole range of provisions.
We broadly welcome the antisocial behaviour provisions. There is one such provision around rough sleeping, if I can call it that, where it causes a nuisance or there is some criminality associated with it. Our view is that that is something that needs very careful and measured consideration. We do not say in policing that rough sleeping is a matter solely for policing and, if the provisions are used, that should be done in conjunction with other local community safety partners and on the basis of necessity. For example, if rough sleeping is associated with mental ill health or homelessness, it is clearly not a matter for policing at all. If there are encampments that are directly associated with criminality, or where there is a direct risk to people in those encampments—because, for example, we do receive reports from time to time of serious sexual offences taking place in such rough sleeping groups—we would clearly want to act in concert with other community safety partners to ensure that people are safe. However, it is not a matter for policing to be removing tents in general, so that is something to which we would want to give very careful consideration.
Alex Norris
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: Last week, we held the chief constables’ council in Edinburgh—that is, the gathering of all chief constables. One of the topics on the agenda was the financial resilience of policing. Our current estimate is that there is somewhere in the region of a £300-billion cash deficit in policing, which requires some difficult and careful choices about resourcing priorities. Where new provisions come forward—indeed, this was a recommendation in the recent productivity review of policing—they should be costed. Whereas we welcome many, if not all, provisions in the Bill—I am sure we will come on to talk about some of the caveats—there are no costings with them, and we will need to work through, in a very detailed fashion, what the additional burdens on policing will be.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
Good morning, Gavin. Let me start by putting on record my thanks to you, as chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and to all your colleagues in policing for the work that you and officers up and down the country do daily. You put yourselves in the line of danger to protect the rest of us, and I am sure that I speak for the whole Committee and the whole House when I put on record our thanks to you and to police officers up and down the country for the work that you do daily to keep the rest of us safe.
Chief Constable Stephens: Thank you, Minister.
Chris Philp
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: Clearly, at local level, the work of community safety partnerships is really important to this. In different localities, they take different forms, but generally, in most borough and district areas, for example, there will be a meeting that talks about places that need particular attention from a range of partners.
If rough sleeping was causing a nuisance, we would not see that as an issue for policing solely, but we would take part in any joint problem-solving plans in order to address concerns. The issue for us would be if, for example, it was a place where criminality was being orchestrated or where people were particularly vulnerable to becoming victims of crime themselves. Clearly, there is a policing interest in that. We would support local partners, but what we would not want to see is a position where communities turn to policing in order to address the issue of rough sleeping on the streets. There needs to be something more than that that we would want to address in partnership with others.
Chris Philp
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: Absolutely, yes. My experience in many years of policing is that communities often do not make a distinction between criminality and antisocial behaviour. If things are affecting their day-to-day lives, they often consider some of those things to be a crime, even if they are not on the statute book, and expect action against them. In this particular instance, we just need to be cautious that we are not using policing powers in order to address a wider social problem—particularly, for example, where it might be due to mental ill health and other complex factors.
Chris Philp
Q
Would you agree that the warrantless powers of entry contained in the Bill, to enter premises to recover stolen goods where there is no other quick way of doing that and where there is a reasonable suspicion that the stolen goods are on the premises, will help the police to recover stolen goods and to arrest thieves who might otherwise go undetected and unpunished?
Chief Constable Stephens: Such a provision would be supportive to operational policing if implemented carefully and thoughtfully, and in conjunction with the other powers that currently exist. One of the topics about stolen property that has led to this provision is the theft of mobile devices that might emit a signal as to where they currently are. It is the view of police that those systems are not currently accurate enough to give a precise location on every occasion.
Clearly, there will be a significant difference between a rural area with dispersed properties and a dense urban environment where you might have maisonettes and blocks of flats when it comes to being able to precisely locate a stolen item. There are available to us under other legislation very intrusive techniques, to be used covertly, whereby we can accurately pinpoint devices, but that is not what is envisaged, I believe, in this particular provision, and we would need to exercise the powers carefully.
Such a provision needs some level of authority. The Bill mentions an inspector authority, which would be commensurate with other search powers following arrest, for example. That would need to be used in conjunction with additional intelligence, bearing in mind that that power could be used at premises where we might not suspect the people inside to have anything to do with the crime. If we suspected that they did, other powers are available to us, such as power of arrest, power of search following arrest and inspector authority to search the premises. The powers contained in the Bill around searching the premises would not cover searching people within those premises, or, again, multiple occupancy.
The general tenet is, yes, this would be very operationally useful. There would need to be careful consideration about the interfacing with existing policing powers and the level of authority needed to exercise the powers. Fundamentally, in exercising those powers, we would need to maintain the consent of communities that they are being used proportionately, lawfully and only where absolutely necessary.
Chris Philp
Thank you, Gavin. I have one more question. As you know, we have been debating retail crime a great deal. The retail crime action plan, which Chief Constable Amanda Blakeman, in consultation with the Government, published just a few weeks ago, was extremely welcome. One thing that we have debated in Parliament, including during the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which the hon. Member for Stockton South—I mean the hon. Member for Stockton North; we have to be very careful when referring to Stockton these days—and I remember very fondly was whether we needed a separate offence of assaulting a retail worker.
In that piece of legislation, we ended up not creating a separate offence and instead making it a statutory aggravating factor where the victim is a retail worker. From a policing point of view, do you consider that that provides adequate protection for retail workers? Do you think that there would be any benefit in creating a separate offence of assaulting a retail worker, or would you be concerned that, if you did that, you could then ask, “What about teachers? What about local councillors? What about minors?” and so on?
Chief Constable Stephens: On additional offences, we have provisions relating to emergency service workers, which is right and proper. In relation to retail crime, the important thing for policing is that we get a grip on the scale of the emerging problem, hence the action plan that you mentioned, Minster.
Police received over a quarter of a million reports of retail theft in the financial year 2022-23, and there has been a 29% rise in the number of arrests. We are clearly taking action, but there is much more to do. I would be concerned if we started adding to a list of additional assault categories, because where is the limit? People who provide vital public services—I would say that retail is a vital public service, and it is important to the vibrancy of local communities and so on—are worthy of particular consideration, but it is a question of where the limits would be.
The Chair
Before I bring Jess in, four further Members have caught my eye. You have nine minutes between you, so bear that in mind.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Q
To take you back to the conduct questions that you started with, are you satisfied with the current system in policing for finding bad conduct where it has occurred?
Chief Constable Stephens: Once the new provisions are introduced, we will be more satisfied with the system. When the new provisions are in place, we in policing will need to work hard to make sure that we are getting through at more speed. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has talked about the number of backlogs in the Met, for example. That is not just in the Met; it is replicated in our member organisations across England and Wales, so speed is definitely one thing.
Fundamentally—I have had these discussions privately with the Minister and others—we need to reclaim this as an employment process. It has become too legalistic over time.
Jess Phillips
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: Yes, given the right emphasis and the right resourcing.
Jess Phillips
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: I could not give a guarantee that it always would.
Jess Phillips
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: Yes, absolutely.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: Policing can gently request, persuade, cajole and encourage without powers.
Vicky Ford
Or stronger.
Chief Constable Stephens: Back to my earlier point, we would want to do so in conjunction with other partners that can provide the support. From a policing perspective, for us to get to the point where we would want to use powers, we would want to know that it is causing a danger to somebody or that there is real criminality. I can think of a number of ways in which we would be able to deal with the example you describe without resorting to powers.
Vicky Ford
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: This would give a power to move them on, but my previous points stand.
Vicky Ford
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: It would not make a difference in terms of the investigation and operational response, because clearly that is something that police would act on anyway. On whether you would want additional emphasis—whether it would be the will of Parliament to have additional emphasis—when it comes to sentencing, that is a separate matter. But it would not make a difference to the initial policing response to investigate the assault.
Vicky Ford
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: We are very concerned about drink spiking and its rise over recent years. Powers to give that additional emphasis, as a deterrent, would be welcome.
The Chair
I remind Members to try to avoid asking the same questions, because we are limited for time with our witnesses. I call Mark Garnier.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Q
One complaint that I have heard from my local police is that, although they can come in, arrest people and charge people, and take them to court, quite often the retailer, who is the victim of the crime, may be reluctant, after a few instances to go to court and spend a day in court away from their shop. Then, quite possibly, it will be a suspended sentence and that criminal will be back in their shop the next day, after they have lost that day’s work. Does this Bill address any of those particular problems, and do you, in your capacity, find that a problem in securing prosecutions against retail criminals?
Chief Constable Stephens: From the consultation that we have done with the team on this, that has not been reported as a particular problem. I think that the broader problem is the work we need to do in policing to regain the confidence of retailers that we are taking this seriously enough. If we regain that confidence, part of that is regaining the confidence of witnesses to come forward with evidence. New technology that has been discussed as part of the action plan, such as the use of CCTV and facial recognition and so on, when used effectively may well reduce the need for live witnesses to give evidence, if the evidence is incontrovertible.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: Absolutely. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has a knife crime working group, which has been working closely with colleagues in the Home Office for a number of years. I would say that the provisions in the Bill have been drafted in very close consultation with the team. We are very concerned about the use of weapons to intimidate and threaten, not least when they are used in violence. I am conscious of time, but I could provide the Committee with some written examples of where we think the new provisions would help—for instance, the taunting of rival gangs on social media using particular weapons—and the provisions that currently exist and would be strengthened by the Bill. We very much welcome these provisions.
Stephen Metcalfe
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: There are a number of provisions here, including the ability to seize knives, even though they are lawfully being held, if we suspect they are going to be used in criminality. We see that as a very important preventive measure.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: Yes. We agree that it is going to be beneficial.
Anna Firth
Q
Chief Constable Stephens: Again, I will keep it very brief, as I can provide written examples. We have seen on social media—on Snapchat-type channels—threats being made to rival groups. I have seen examples from colleagues in the Metropolitan police from the Notting Hill Carnival, where the threat was towards a group of people who might be present in a particular locality. The ability to have stronger provisions to prevent and disrupt potential violence is really important to us.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank the witness for their evidence and we will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Graeme Biggar, Gregor McGill and Baljit Ubhey gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Graeme Biggar, director general of the National Crime Agency; Gregor McGill, director of legal service for the Crown Prosecution Service; and Baljit Ubhey, director of strategy and policy for the Crown Prosecution Service. For this panel, we have until 10.40 am. Welcome to you all, and thank you for joining us. I know I have just done it, but could you all please introduce yourselves for the record?
Graeme Biggar: I am still Graeme Biggar, director general of the National Crime Agency.
Gregor McGill: I am Gregor McGill, director of legal service at the Crown Prosecution Service.
Baljit Ubhey: I am Baljit Ubhey, director of strategy and policy at the Crown Prosecution Service.
Alex Norris
Q
Graeme Biggar: Sorry, I missed which clauses you referred to.
Alex Norris
Clauses 1 to 8.
Graeme Biggar: Can you just remind me which ones clauses 1 to 8 are?
Alex Norris
They deal with offences related to things used in serious crime, theft or fraud, such as SIM farms and 3D printers—the sorts of items that can be used in organised crime.
Graeme Biggar: 3D printers, concealment and pill presses are three different things that are used in crimes a lot. I will come to SIM farms later. We have seen 3D-printed firearms emerge. They are a function of the fact that we have done well to control the availability of firearms in this country generally, but there is new technology available. We seized 17 weapons—3D-printed firearms—last year; we have seized 25 so far this year. At the moment, the possession of the blueprint to make that firearm is not unlawful, so we can go in and see there is a firearm there, and we can see it is a factory that is making these weapons, but we cannot do anything about it. The Bill could really help on that particular issue.
On pill presses, you will be aware of the number of deaths from drug overdoses, misuse and poisoning in the UK. In 2021—there is a bit of a lag on drug deaths—there were almost 1,500 drug deaths from overdoses on benzodiazepine, which is largely used in pill form. We get other drugs in pill form, such as ecstasy, most notably, but the Met seized 150,000 pills of fentanyl just a couple of weeks ago. Pill presses are used to create these pills and distribute them at the moment. We are unusual, globally, not to have regulation of pill presses. This legislation would make the possession and supply of pill presses without a good, legitimate excuse—there are some legitimate uses for a pill press, obviously—an offence, and that would really help us. In 2020, for example, we did a raid in which we seized 40 million pills from England that were being supplied up to Scotland.
Concealment is the final one of the three in that category. We can seize a vehicle at the border if we discover a sophisticated concealment that is built into a vehicle to hide drugs, cash or, potentially, people, but we cannot actually seize a vehicle within the UK unless we can also show that there is some criminal activity there. These concealments are purpose-built to enable stuff to be both brought across the border and then distributed around the UK. We have seized 438 vehicles over the past three years; about 150 of those were at the border, so we could do that just because there was a concealment. For the others, we had to demonstrate that there was also criminal activity, so that has largely been when we have found drugs or a gun in them. There are factories around the UK that are building these concealments, and people who specialise in building them. It would be really helpful for us to be able to seize the vehicles and prosecute the people who are building them.
You mentioned SIM farms as well. You will all be aware from your constituency correspondence of the amount of fraud there is in this country, and some of that volume is driven by the ability of fraudsters to use SIM farms to automatically generate tens of thousands of text messages. A SIM farm puts lots of SIMs together and does that in an automatic way. The vast majority of that happens overseas, but we have discovered a few SIM farms in the UK. Being able to take action on that would be really helpful too.
Alex Norris
Q
Gregor McGill: It is fair to say that resources are tight at the moment, so any new offences coming into the system will affect not only the CPS but other parts of the criminal justice system—the courts and the prisons—so that will have to be factored in. We are in the process of talking with the Treasury about resources, but that is a relevant factor. We do not know how many cases this will involve. What I can say is that our corporate position is that these will be useful offences to be able to work closely with our colleagues in the National Crime Agency and wider policing to affect criminality, but you are quite right that we will have to keep our eye on the resource implications of them and come back to Ministers if we find that there are issues.
Graeme Biggar: May I just add a comment? For a lot of these particular offences, it will shortcut our investigations, because at the moment we are finding 3D-printed firearms or concealments, but we have to do a whole bunch of extra work to be able to reach the criminal threshold for an actual charge, so in some senses this will actually make things easier for us.
Chris Philp
Q
Graeme Biggar: The drafting for those items does everything I think we need to see regarding both possession and supply. There are other issues that, over time, we will want to think about adding. It is very helpful to see that the Bill allows a mechanism for secondary legislation to be brought forward in order to add other items. One issue that we are looking at currently is childlike sexual abuse dolls. We can seize them, as it is an offence to bring them across the border, but it is not an offence to possess one in the UK. That is an issue we would want to look at adding to that section.
Chris Philp
Q
Graeme Biggar: Yes, it would. It is really important for us to be able to use facial recognition more. I know that is an issue you have been championing. We use it within the NCA, but there is more we need to be doing within the NCA and across police forces in the round.
Chris Philp
Q
Baljit Ubhey: I think it is probably unnecessary. I would echo what Gavin has said about building confidence with the retail community. In the code for Crown prosecutors, it is a public interest factor in favour of prosecuting—where the crime is committed against someone who is conducting a public service—so we already treat that more seriously, and obviously there are a range of offences that cover a range of different assaults.
Chris Philp
Q
Baljit Ubhey: I do not think it is necessary.
Chris Philp
Q
My next question is again for the CPS. In relation to the knife crime provisions, some of them are in this Bill and others are being taken forward via secondary legislation, of course; I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West for her campaigning on this issue. Do you feel that the new offence being created, of possession of a weapon with intent to use unlawful violence, is a helpful addition to the statute book and might enable those who intend to use serious violence but have not yet committed it to be given longer sentences?
Baljit Ubhey: We recognise that this bridges the gap between simple possession and the different circumstances where violence is threatened, so we think it is a helpful addition.
Gregor McGill: It mirrors the offence in the Firearms Act 2023, which prosecutors use a lot and which is a very useful tool, so there is no reason to think that this would not be an equally useful tool.
Chris Philp
Q
Gregor McGill: Yes.
Chris Philp
Q
Gregor McGill: They are used relatively frequently now; we use them a lot with our NCA colleagues. They are probably not used as much as they could be with National Police Chiefs’ Council forces, so we could use them more there.
I was part of the group that negotiated introducing these orders in 2007. The limitation then was that they were not to be used as an alternative to prosecution, so I think that sometimes a rather restrictive view was taken about their use. They have been used a lot after a conviction in a Crown court trial, but they have not been used a lot as a stand-alone measure in the High Court, so there is more that we can do in consultation with our law enforcement colleagues to make sure that we use these measures more frequently.
There are some risks in using them in the High Court. As you know, costs follow the event in the High Court and cost orders can be high. Also, although the standard of proof is said to be on the balance of probabilities and the civil standards, we are seeing that what is required to obtain an order inch up in the High Court to close to the criminal standard. Therefore, by the time you have gone through all that and you are up near the criminal standard, if you have got the evidence, often you can prosecute rather than going for the civil sanction, and that is part of the problem.
However, I do not think any of this is not resolvable with proper communication between ourselves and our law enforcement colleagues. But these orders are a useful tool.
Chris Philp
Q
Gregor McGill: On the whole, I think there have been some concerns because you are putting limitations on people’s ability to do things without them being convicted of a criminal offence. There is always a nervousness about that and a request for really quite strong evidence before that is done. I understand that, but it is an issue sometimes.
Chris Philp
Q
If I have time to do so, I would just like to ask a question to the NCA and to the CPS about the confiscation regime and the changes to that regime proposed in this Bill. I think that the Committee would be interested in hearing your assessment of the likely impact of the changes proposed in the Bill, particularly in clause 32.
Graeme Biggar: We really support these changes. There has been a detailed Law Commission review that has underpinned them. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 has been transformative for law enforcement, but it is also quite complex, and we have evolved ways of making it work.
All the provisions that are in the Bill, and there are obviously an awful lot, will simplify and codify some of what is current practice. It will take some of the work out of doing things; it will enable us to get to resolutions more quickly. It is an awful lot of individual measures, so it is quite hard to put a figure on how much more we will seize or how much less effort we will put into seizing, but we expect to be able to get to more. How much more? It is quite lumpy, as you will know, Minister. Some very large seizures of tens or hundreds of millions can change how much we get each year, but we expect it to make it easier for us, and expect to seize more as a result.
Chris Philp
Q
Graeme Biggar: Yes and yes, and we fed a lot into the Law Commission review. We looked closely at what they came up with, and we fed into the Government consultation. Yes, we are content.
Chris Philp
Q
Graeme Biggar: Yes, we are happy. You did not direct the question to me on SCPOs, so unbelievably quickly on that, two things that will be easier as a result are our ability in the NCA or the police to put an SCPO directly to the court—in consultation with the CPS, rather than putting the burden on to the CPS—and the standard set of conditions. At the moment, we have to set out and justify every single one; in the future, we will be able to draw on the standard set of conditions, which will also reduce the bureaucracy. That should ease the burden on SCPOs as well.
Chris Philp
Q
Gregor McGill: We had full consultation with the Law Commission. These proposals have been lifted out almost entirely from the Law Commission proposals, and we worked with the commission and supported the proposals, so we support them. I cannot say whether it will lead to more—we will have to see—but what it will do is to make the process more transparent and better for victims.
What we are particularly pleased with is the idea that you can go back to court to increase a confiscation order, which I think is better for victims. At the moment, we have a workaround, where we can go back to raise a confiscation order, but if the perpetrator is prepared to pay money direct to the victims, we will allow that money to go to victims, rather than towards the confiscation order. Putting this on a statutory footing, putting hidden assets on a statutory footing, and being able to be realistic where it is clear that some orders will never be enforced will improve transparency and the whole system.
Chris Philp
Q
Gregor McGill: I have not personally, but my specialist proceeds of crime team in the CPS tell me that they have.
Chris Philp
And they are happy?
Gregor McGill: And they are happy.
Graeme Biggar: The Minister gave me a last chance to come in, and I said no, but there was one other thing we would appreciate. At the moment, people who are subject to these orders will sometimes stall, they do not meet their deadlines and the process can drag on for years—we have just concluded a case in which the conviction was in 2018 and we only got the order last month—so amendments to the Bill that would require people to meet the deadlines, giving them a penalty if they did not, would be helpful.
Chris Philp
That is a very good point, which we will undertake to take away to look at. It sounds like a very fair request. I will get on to it now.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Q
Graeme Biggar: We are getting to definitions of the different tech companies. The social media companies are not often the ones that have the IP addresses and so on. We absolutely support this measure, and we have argued for it in the consultations on both this Bill and the Computer Misuse Act.
By and large, the organisations in the UK—the registers here of IP addresses—do act when we put a request in to take down, but not in every single case. Internationally, that happens less often. This would give us that ability—we absolutely would go for voluntary first, and we should stick with that process, because it largely works, but if that does not work, we would then be able to compel the suspension of the domain or the IP address. That would help.
Internationally, we have less success. The very existence of a court order that most other countries have and then companies act on would be really help. It would still be hard to implement in some countries, but it would still increase the amount of positive action taken on the basis of our requests.
Mrs Drummond
Q
Graeme Biggar: This is a bit less relevant to Meta, but we have worked hard with the Home Office on the fraud sector charter, which was published the week before last. It encourages Meta and other companies to take more action to try to stop fraud, which remains really important. They have a huge responsibility that they are currently only partly living up to, but they have signed the charter to make big steps forward, and we look forward to seeing what they will do as a result.
The Chair
Before I call the next question, I remind Members to catch my eye as early as possible. If you do not, I will give leeway to those who caught my eye earlier and you may not get in. I appreciate that points may occur to you as discussions develop, but it would be helpful for timing. I call Jess Phillips.
Jess Phillips
Q
Graeme Biggar: There is nothing missing on people smuggling that we would need at the moment, to answer that direct question. I mentioned child-like sexual abuse dolls. Another issue that you care about is child sexual abuse websites. At the moment, it is obviously a criminal offence to possess or distribute indecent images of children, but it is not a specific criminal offence to be a moderator or an administrator of the dark websites that hold millions of images and videos of children being raped. We often investigate and we prosecute individuals for viewing and distributing the images, but there is not an extra offence for being the person who runs and sets up that kind of website.
Jess Phillips
Q
Graeme Biggar: We do work on grooming gangs when people are below the age of consent, as you know, with Operation Stovewood in Rotherham. We also work on sexual exploitation of adults. We have had a number of investigations recently into women from Romania and Brazil being brought into the UK.
Jess Phillips
Q
Graeme Biggar: We have come across less of that in our investigations, but we will work with the NPCC.
Jess Phillips
I’ll take you on a night out, mate. I could show you it in every single part of the country.
Graeme Biggar: We focus on the ones who cross the border; it is the NPCC that focuses on adult sexual exploitation within the UK.
Jess Phillips
Q
Graeme Biggar: No, we would. If we could see large-scale, organised crime that involves modern slavery, which includes the sexual exploitation of women, we would investigate it. We have not yet come across such a case—certainly not in my time in the NCA.
The Chair
Order. I remind you that you need to focus on the scope of the Bill rather than the general work of the agencies, not to in any way diminish the importance of the issue. Do you have any further questions, Jess?
Anna Firth
Q
Baljit Ubhey: Certainly the fact that it is an either-way offence and you do not have the challenges of the six-month time limits that summary-only offences create —given, as you say, the complexities of how these knives are manufactured, sold and so on—will helpfully close a bit of a gap.
Graeme Biggar: We agree with that point and the points that Gavin made earlier in relation to it.
The Chair
Apologies to Vicky: I understand that you could not hear me, down at the bottom. If any Members cannot hear, please raise your hand to let me know and I will endeavour to speak up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Laura Farris)
Q
Graeme Biggar: No, but let me write to you and the Committee about that.
Vicky Ford
Q
Baljit Ubhey: I think it could be helpful in communicating very specifically. At the moment, there is a specific offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. In addition, there is the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which is old legislation although we still use it for a wide variety of criminality. I take the point, however, that the language of some of the offences under that Act may not be as explicit. We can prosecute spiking, whether it is related to sexual offences or otherwise, but modernising may be helpful.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
If there is time, Chair, I would like to ask a couple of things.
The Chair
Absolutely. There is time. So that Members are aware, we have until 10.37 am. Please make the most of our esteemed guests.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Baljit Ubhey: It is an important measure, given some of the high-profile cases we have seen and the impact they have had on victims. We will have to look very carefully at how we apply for that power—which allows the court or the prosecutor to apply for compulsory attendance—and seek victims’ views. The consideration to think about is whether that would cause extra violence. There is something in the Bill about the use of force, which prison custody officers would need to think about. As the provisions stand, I think prison officers will still have the discretion even if there is an application. I can see why it is in the Bill, but we will have to wait and see how it operates in practice.
Alex Cunningham
Q
The Bill also proposes to transfer prisoners to foreign prisons. That will require international co-operation. I am interested to know whether the police or anybody else have any reservations about transferring people to foreign prisons.
Graeme Biggar: It is probably more a matter for the police than for the NCA. The challenge for us will be our ability to demonstrate that there will be human rights protections in the jurisdiction that the individuals are being transferred to. If we are trying to extradite people from the UK and cannot guarantee where they will be in prison, that will be a challenge in getting the extradition. That will need to be worked through as this proposal is taken forward.
Gregor McGill: I think that is right: I echo what Mr Biggar said. In the extradition world, extradition is a state to state agreement. One state negotiates with another state about returning someone to a state. Bring a third state into that equation and it becomes much more complicated. When we are bringing someone over here, we have to give assurances about prison conditions, and so on. It will become more bureaucratic and more difficult, potentially, in those circumstances. We will have to see what the regulations say.
There is also another pitfall.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Gregor McGill: It is not for prosecutors to say what the regulations should say; that is political. As I say, extradition is an agreement between one state and another to transfer one person from one jurisdiction to another. That transferring country could become a little bit more concerned if they think they have to deal with a third state down the road, because they lose control over it. That is the point I was going to make. Once you send someone to another jurisdiction, you lose control over that person; they become subject to the laws of the country to which they are being sent. That can be another complication. If they commit an offence while they are in custody, over there they would have to be dealt with for that offence. If they escaped from lawful custody when they were there, that would have to be investigated by that new country. Those matters are political decisions, but the issues are practical. Echoing what Graeme said, I would have thought that there will be human rights challenges.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Gregor McGill: Yes, they would.
Alex Cunningham
So, as you say, it is quite complicated.
Gregor McGill: It adds a further layer of complication to an already complicated process, if I may put it that way.
Mark Garnier
Q
Baljit Ubhey indicated assent.
Mark Garnier
Q
Gregor McGill: It is difficult to say. Sentencing is a matter for the court. The police investigate and arrest, send the file to us, we make a decision, take to the court and the court sentences if there is a guilty verdict. The kind of person who regularly does retail theft will often—not always, but often—have addiction or illness issues, which will mean that they will often be stealing to fund an addiction.
Speaking as someone who has been a prosecutor for 33 years, I can say that I recognise what you are saying. When I went to the magistrates court, I regularly saw the same people attending for the same offences, so I accept that it must be frustrating. We are beholden to the law, we have to apply the law and the law must take its course. People serve their sentence and that is what happens. There is not much more we can do in those circumstances, but I understand the frustration.
Mark Garnier
Q
Baljit Ubhey: I recognise the frustration, the challenge and, as you say also, having to give up time to give evidence. Unless you can prove the case without having that witness give evidence, it is challenging. We spoke earlier about CCTV and other ways. Where we can look at using other evidence, we should do that proactively, but often in these cases currently, we need the individual who has been the victim to give evidence. I can absolutely understand the frustration if the person is back. If they have a suspended sentence, which can be triggered, but I recognise the frustration.
Mark Garnier
Q
Baljit Ubhey: I would not say that. I do not think it is a question of the courts letting down. Sentencing, which is a matter for the courts, is a complicated and difficult balancing exercise, as my colleague has just said. Often, the people who are committing the offences have a range of issues that will go into the balance when looking at sentencing. I certainly would not say that people are letting down; I think it is just a challenge.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Baroness Newlove and Nicole Jacobs. For this panel we have until 11.25 am. Welcome to you both. Would you please introduce yourselves for the record?
Baroness Newlove: I am Baroness Newlove, Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales.
Nicole Jacobs: I am Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Nicole Jacobs: There are several provisions in the Bill that I am interested in and support, and then there are a few issues that I feel are not currently in the Bill that could be and should be. First, on measures that are in the Bill, are some of the sentencing provisions that stem from Clare Wade’s review of sentencing, which I fully support. That was a range of recommendations, some of which have been picked up and some of which have not, but they were really put forward by Clare Wade KC to be taken as a whole. I am very supportive of the fact that in this Bill, murder at the end of a relationship is a statutory aggravating factor; there are other recommendations to be looked at and considered to see whether the legislation could be improved in any way, but I am certainly supportive of what is there already.
Another point is MAPPA—the multi-agency public protection arrangements between police, prison and probation—and adding coercion and controlling behaviour to that. I am very supportive of that, but I would have some comments, if you wanted to hear them, about the limitations of what that will achieve. There is also the College of Policing issuing a code of practice about ethical policing, which I obviously welcome, but I have a few comments that relate to improving it. Then there is the issue of police-perpetrated abuse or misconduct. There are provisions in the Bill that address how that will be dealt with if the chief constable does not feel that the outcome of the police tribunal is appropriate. I support those provisions, but I have more concerns about the police and crime commissioner being involved if there are concerns about the chief constable. Those are some of the main points.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Nicole Jacobs: Police-perpetrated domestic abuse related issues—and that means three key things to me. One is being more proactive about removing warrant cards if someone is under investigation for crimes relating to violence against women and girls or domestic abuse. The second is the specified offences that I believe should be listed that would constitute gross misconduct; again, I think they should be defined as domestic abuse, sexual harassment, assault and violence, so-called honour-based abuse, and stalking. The third is stronger provisions in relation to police vetting—requiring that every five years, and ensuring that if there is a change in force, police vetting takes place. Tightening up those provisions is not currently in the Bill and I think it should be.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Baroness Newlove: I was brought in to scrutinise the Victims and Prisoners Bill. What is in this Bill that is not in the Victims and Prisoners Bill is recognising victims of antisocial behaviour. That is why I have written to Ministers. In fact, there will be something going their way on antisocial behaviour. I welcome that we are dealing with antisocial behaviour in the Bill. However, to me it is still about hitting the mark that it should be hitting—recognising victims and the impact of antisocial behaviour. I say that because the police really are the people they go to and they do not make that criminal threshold—joining all the dots together—beforehand.
For me, it is about getting the right priority. It is not about making more enforcement powers for the police, because there are that many pieces of legislation that the toolbox is overflowing; it is about ensuring that the range of powers is used correctly, and that the police are made aware of them. Further down the line, it is also about looking at the appeal route of antisocial behaviour case reviews, which I addressed in my final report, “Living a Nightmare”. That is one of my asks of this Committee: to look at the PCC reviewing the appeal, but also at having an independent person, because it is very much all about people who have looked at it in the first place marking their own homework. My second ask is having the victim impact statement involved in the appeal system. We do it in parole, and we do it in court trials.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Baroness Newlove: That is not an area I work on. I would have to write to the Committee on that. For me, it is about victims of crime per se, so I have no real evidence to answer that. All I can say, from anecdotal evidence, is that self-harm is a big issue in this day and age, and it was highlighted in the Online Safety Bill. I would not like to recommend anything when I do not have the evidence to support it.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Nicole Jacobs: The Clare Wade review stemmed from the Victims’ Commissioner and my office writing to Robert Buckland asking for the review to be undertaken, and it was really welcome. I suppose she was weighing the difference between simply raising sentencing thresholds and having a more nuanced response. What she came up with was a set of recommendations to add what she feels are the key contexts to domestic abuse, which we are seeing in sentencing being chronically overlooked and misunderstood.
What she has recommended does not cherry-pick one or two or three, but says, “If we want a nuanced, really informed approach to understanding domestic homicide review sentencing, we have to look at these in the whole.” One of those is obviously homicide after separation. That is the most common time we see domestic homicides. It is totally reasonable for that to be recognised in this Bill. The trouble is, several things are not. Things like non-fatal strangulation, which is one of the most common ways people are murdered in domestic homicide cases, is not there, nor is overkill—the context of controlling and coercive behaviour. I understand that the Law Commission is consulting on some things, but it seems to me a missed opportunity to not move forward on some of those recommendations, which were so carefully thought through.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Baroness Newlove: In terms of victims and their families, both personally and professionally assumptions are made about them when people do not even understand the victim’s journey. I get annoyed at that. I think this is a very important point, because victims sit there for weeks or months on end, listening to evidence and having no voice at all. Part of the victims code is to have the victim impact statement, and there is the ability to read it out if there is conviction. I think it should be respected that the family have that kind of relationship, because they have listened to that evidence about their loved ones. Personally, I can say that I have sat there for 10 weeks and not been able to say anything.
I also think that you do not know how to judge an offender. They could say that they are coming in the dock and then not play ball. I have seen for myself—evidence shows this—that even through the court trial they will turn their backs, goad you and do everything. If it is still to the judge’s discretion and direction, I would like—I have said this previously—for the judge to own the courtroom if the offender does play in the dock and does not respect the perimeters. Victims’ families are told to respect the perimeters of the courtroom, and the judiciary needs to have that respect. If it happens that they do not want to turn up in dock, a deadline should be put on what is going on. If not, put something in their cell if they are in the court building.
Anecdotally, I used to work in the magistrates courts and we had stipendiary magistrates. You never messed with them. You had to have all your ducks lined up. We would visit the prison cell if they did not want to come down. There is a way of dealing with things, and we have moved on a lot since then—I am talking about many years ago.
Laura Farris
Q
Nicole Jacobs: Because it is a multi-agency arrangement and intelligence is brought into that process, it is extremely important that you have monitoring and supervision of an offender. The nature of that is much more active because you have prison parole and the police working together. We have a long-standing view that more offenders of domestic abuse should be monitored and overseen in that way. The last report from His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation showed that about 75,000 people who have committed domestic abuse are supervised in that way, and it probably could be more, considering our numbers.
As I commented earlier, because conviction rates of coercion and controlling behaviour are relatively low, the provisions are welcome and will add people to that list, but it is not the only way in which we are monitoring and overseeing perpetrators in the community. It is very important, but I suppose it is not everything. If it is in legislation, there is a real case to be made for more consistency force by force about arrangements where people are not meeting thresholds of MAPPA, but equally are posing risk to victims who would not be meeting those thresholds or levels. That needs a lot more focus and attention.
Some forces use something called MATAC—multi-agency tasking and co-ordination—where they bring information in not just from the police but all sorts of places. It was pioneered in Northumbria, and several forces’ areas have adopted that. Other force areas will implement something called the Drive Project, which is quite similar. It is essentially recognising that so many perpetrators of domestic abuse will not have even touched the criminal justice system. Only one in five victims will ever even disclose to the police, yet there are people who cause quite high harm.
Those arrangements are taking in wider information from a variety of sources and deciding their resourcing and tasking. Whether or not that is addressed in legislation, we have a real need in general in England and Wales to have a much more uniform and clear approach as to how that is addressed. We often hear people say, “I want to see a perpetrator register.” Well, what people mean by that is this aim to have proper oversight of perpetrators, and it is not quite as simple as putting someone on a list; it really means undertaking these more meaningful multi-agency exercises. We do not have a very consistent approach just yet. There is obviously excellent practice, but we need to see a more comprehensive practice.
Laura Farris
Q
Nicole Jacobs: To some degree—they certainly would catch the ones who are known to the system. We need to do more to ensure that police are confident in the way that they are investigating coercion and controlling behaviour, and we would want to see that. The Government have certainly made efforts to train police forces. I would think most people would agree that that offence is fairly underutilised at the current time. As that grows, and as improvements are made, you will find more people subject to MAPPA.
The more comprehensive win will be having a consistent approach across all forces so that there are other multi-agency arrangements in place for people who have not had convictions and are not subject to MAPPA but represent a huge risk for victims of domestic abuse. We should distinguish between perpetrators who are well known to the system, in relation to conviction, against whom the powers of MAPPA can be used, and people who are lesser known, for whom there are other ways to mitigate risk. For example, Northumbria has MATAC—multi-agency tasking and co-ordination—and it has said that the majority of the people it is tasking and putting resource into do not have convictions and yet are understood by multi-agency partners to pose high risk. That perhaps just means that they are so good at their perpetration and the fear they impose that there has not been support for prosecution and other things. I suppose what I am trying to get across is that conviction is not the only risk factor to keep in mind; there are many, many more.
Laura Farris
Q
Nicole Jacobs: In cases where the chief constable overrules something, the important thing for me is that provision is in place to ensure it is independent. I understand that it would be irregular, but you must consider the background and history of how police misconduct has been mishandled. The Home Affairs Committee, the Casey review and many other people have laid that out; I am obviously not the only one saying that.
There is a lot of evidence that the way these things have been handled over time, including through the vetting of the misconduct itself, has been far from ideal, and has been deprioritised to the point where many victims of domestic abuse are starting to lose faith in the criminal justice system. I find that very troubling. The police should be the first port of call, and yet the fact that there are so many instances of misconduct leads to a deterioration of our confidence in policing. Certainly, that is the case for victims.
Anything you can do to strengthen that would be helpful. Considering the removal of warrant cards is really important. We can see from many sources that that would be effective. Refuge did a freedom of information request that showed that that happens only about 25% of the time in police forces. There should also be suspension from duties for domestic abuse and sexual violence-related offences. One of the most common reasons for police officers to be called to the attention of the Independent Office for Police Conduct is that it has used its powers to pursue sexual misconduct and sexual violence. There are chronic problems, and we have to be more assertive in this Bill about warrant cards and in specifying offences that constitute gross misconduct if there is a conviction. That seems quite reasonable to me.
The vetting needs so much more care and attention. I think right now it is at 10 years; I would say that it needs to be five years, and certainly it should be every time a police officer changes forces. There are things that we can do that we know will fix the chronic problems. I am less comfortable with the idea of a police and crime commissioner getting involved, in relation to a chief constable. I think it should be a more independent body, such as the IOPC, or the inspectorate, just because police and crime commissioners are elected. That was the discomfort I talked about earlier.
Laura Farris
Q
“Reviews of responses to complaints about anti-social behaviour”.
It is that package of measures. Given your work on that, what could you say about that providing adequate coverage of some of the issues that victims have reported to you in the past?
Baroness Newlove: In an antisocial behaviour case review, first and foremost, we have to ensure the victim understands what an antisocial behaviour case review is. However, for those who sit forward to do the review and appeal through the PCC, there should ideally be a chair who is independent. If the notion now is that the review is merely a tick-box exercise and it feels to that victim that they are not involved—as I just said, there is no victim impact statement—an independent person should look at the overall evidence to come to a better conclusion.
It feels like there is an incestuous ring of people making a decision, who, in the first place, do not get the impact of antisocial behaviour. That is the problem with antisocial behaviour; nobody really gets the impact. I welcome anything that makes victims’ lives better, but you can have as many powers as you want, yet if you do not understand the impact on that victim and on that community, they really do not help the victim get through better in life. It ends up being them investigating their own powers.
Laura Farris
Q
Baroness Newlove: I think it is better, but again, it has to be shown that it is independent. More importantly, it has to have the victim’s voice in there. If you do not listen, you do not have that victim’s voice right through the file, or whatever they call it. It ends up being that you really do not understand the impact on the victim. How can you make a decision when you do not have the victim’s voice in there? That feels very much like you are looking at legislation, how you can tick a box or how the powers that be are using the powers. Most importantly, however, you have to bring the victim along and have that voice in there. Then, you really can make a true decision on how you can absolutely solve the problem.
Laura Farris
Q
Baroness Newlove: I have not specifically looked at that. Looking at all the reviews I have done, I have said outside this role that parenting is the most difficult job anybody can do, but you have to be accountable for the actions.
I have concerns: yes, the age is 10, but there could be other areas in which that person is suffering, such as dyslexia or autism. Also, the parents could be suffering domestic abuse. How do you make them pay that fine, at the end of the day? If you go back to that, we had that kind of language in the riots, where we were going to get the parents and take them out of their homes. For me, there has to be accountability, but how would you get that parent, who is probably suffering from domestic abuse or may have mental health and addiction issues, to fully understand the impact that their child is having? They may need support to rectify that. Also, that child could have other issues.
I can see where you are going from that. I welcome anything, but I am just stepping back a little to consider how that would have an impact on the rest of the family to make sure we can get a better solution.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: Well, according to the Office for National Statistics, it is 2.3 million.
Jess Phillips
And then those that get reported to the police?
Nicole Jacobs: One in five. Sometimes the research says one in six, but we can say one in five.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: Yes.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: That is correct for that provision, which is really why I was making the point about the wider work required. Or, as the Bill progresses, I am sure you will have people who might put forward other offences that ought to be included. However, that is correct, and I suppose that not every dangerous perpetrator of domestic abuse will be subject to MAPPA, because of the fact of the lack of convictions.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: Numbers-wise, it would be modest—
Jess Phillips
It is about 56.
Nicole Jacobs: But I would not be against the principle of that, because I recognise that coercion and controlling behaviour is a known high-risk factor. Some of the policing risk assessments are really geared to understanding that better. There is obviously no harm in doing that, but I suppose that it is just that the ambition of us wanting to monitor and have a lot more active oversight is more geared towards those other programmes on recency, frequency and gravity—the algorithms that police use.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: I would love to see you consider ways that you could have a more active oversight that could be consistent.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: It is usually others.
Jess Phillips
Yes.
Nicole Jacobs: I will send the Committee a report that I just published last week, which is a compilation of findings from 300 domestic homicide reviews. We published four reports: one about children’s social care, one about adult social care, one about health-related recommendations, and one on criminal justice. That might be useful for this discussion because, in that report, you can see the numbers of perpetrators who have committed murder, how many had criminal convictions and what the nature of those recommendations were, so I would be very happy to send that.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: No. The reason that they would not is that those IT systems would not speak to each other, even to know the fact finding within family court, for example. We are doing that; we are going into three court areas and actually looking at the domestic information. We have done a lot of legal academic preparation to do that. It is not even easy to get that from the family court system itself. In other words, that kind of fact-finding information is not quite readily available, even though it would have been found as fact in front of a judge and used, so that would not factor in.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: Not to my knowledge. There was, for example, Project Shield in North Yorkshire where even orders of protection were having to be manually entered into the police national database. People underestimate the extent to which police have all the information they need at their fingertips to understand the whole picture and risk of a perpetrator of domestic abuse, and there is huge scope for improvement there.
The Chair
Do we have any further questions? We have 12 more minutes, if anyone want to take the opportunity.
Jess Phillips
Q
Baroness Newlove: I have not done any specific research on that, but there is probably a synergy of reasons. When I spoke to child sexual abuse victims when I worked on IICSA, I saw that there is a reason for survivorship. They have been made to do things—not because they are criminals, but because they are absolutely fearful for their lives. But I have not done percentage research and, as you know, Jess, I am more of a people person in the sense of really putting it as it is. A lot of victims were writing to me before I came back into this role who felt that that is not being recognised. Through no fault of their own, they have had to turn to things they did not wish to do, and they have turned to substance misuse to get them through the absolute harm they have gone through.
Nicole Jacobs: Again, I can send this to the Committee, but there is a really excellent piece of academic work, recently published in the form of a book, that makes a clear link to the anecdotal things we know, which is that it is related to experiences of domestic abuse as a child and how that impacts behaviour into adolescence, particularly with boys. I think that is something that could be considered.
One thing I was hoping to touch on and make the link to earlier was the extent to which we really struggle with registered social landlords confusing domestic abuse with antisocial behaviour, and others reporting it as noise nuisance and that type of thing. There has been a lot of reform over the last five years in particular to really help registered social landlords disentangle those things, so they are not misinterpreting domestic abuse as antisocial behaviour. That is worth considering in the provisions.
On rough sleeping, St Mungo’s will tell you that some 50% of female rough sleepers are there because of domestic abuse. We have to really think and consider how that impacts particular people in the wider context of some of the provisions of the Bill.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: I think the Ministry of Justice’s own female offender strategy is much more about diversion from prison, so you see women’s centres undertaking a lot of that kind of work, which I think is right. My view is that people who have been involved in crime who are subject to domestic abuse and that abuse is linked to their offending have very little place in prison, full stop. We have to understand the context of the offending and the extent to which doing so would be in the public interest. I would like to see them not in prison in general, but being supported in the community.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I would like to thank our witnesses, Baroness Newlove and Nicole Jacobs, for their evidence and for their time. That brings us to the end of the morning session, and the Committee will meet again at 2 pm here in the Boothroyd Room to continue taking oral evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)
Criminal Justice Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 12th December 2023
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Criminal Justice Bill 2023-24 View all Criminal Justice Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2023 - (12 Dec 2023)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. We will begin this afternoon’s session by hearing oral evidence from Harvey Redgrave and Rebecca Bryant OBE, who is with us virtually. We have until 2.45 pm for this panel, so please keep your eyes on the clock. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Harvey Redgrave: Hi, and thanks for having me. I am Harvey Redgrave, chief executive of Crest Advisory, which is a specialist crime, policing and criminal justice organisation. I am also a senior fellow at the Tony Blair Institute, where I lead on home affairs policy.
Rebecca Bryant: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Rebecca Bryant. I am the chief executive of Resolve. Resolve is a membership organisation focused on community safety and antisocial behaviour. Our members are housing providers, local authorities, police forces and police and crime commissioners.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Good afternoon to both our witnesses; thank you for your time. Rebecca Bryant, you mentioned Resolve’s long-running interest in antisocial behaviour. Could you give us your views on the clauses in the Bill that relate to antisocial behaviour and whether there is anything you would add to them?
Rebecca Bryant: Thank you for the question. First of all, as a membership organisation, the views are of our members. We have spent time talking to them since the Bill was published. Quite a few different views have been put forward by our members and by Resolve ourselves as an organisation. Some of the clauses we agree with, and some of them we do not. I can take you through each particular one.
We absolutely agree with the clause on creating a duty for police and crime commissioners to promote awareness of the antisocial behaviour case review. I am quite happy to elaborate on that. On extending the power to implement dispersal orders to local authorities, our members generally agree that dispersal powers should remain with the police rather than being spread to local authorities, and there are very specific reasons for that. The police are required to enforce any breach of the dispersal order, and really these powers should be seen as a partnership response rather than a sole agency response.
When a dispersal order is being put in place, that needs to be considered by the local authority and with it as a partnership across the board through the community safety partnership. There should be an understanding as well that the police are on the ground and out on patrol 24/7, so are in a much better position to be able to use that power. They also have the skills and knowledge to use it.
That takes me on to extending the time frame for a dispersal order from 48 hours to 72 hours. All our members that we consulted are in favour of the extension of time. Our members are not in favour of extending the public spaces protection orders to the police because local authorities are very skilled in using them—that is where the knowledge lies. Significant expertise and a lot of consultation with the public are required before you put one in place. Rather than extending it, it should be used in partnership through the community safety partnership.
In relation to lowering the age for issuing a community protection notice from 16 to 10 and increasing the upper fine limit from £100 to £500 for breaches, members are mixed, particularly on the lowering of the age to 10. A lot of work goes into early intervention and prevention and how we deal with young people on the path to causing antisocial behaviour. Penalising young people at age 10 for antisocial behaviour by fining their parents if there was to be a breach is quite a significant step and flies in the face of our approach to early intervention and prevention, which uses positive mentoring and youth interventions for young people.
On extending the time frame for applying for closure orders from 48 hours to 72 hours after serving the notice, everybody was in favour, but they would like to see more explicit guidance and support around magistrates courts. On giving the closure power to housing providers, everybody who is a housing provider is absolutely in support of that; Resolve has been lobbying for that for some time now, particularly as it is a very good tool to use for more serious types of antisocial behaviour, such as cuckooing and exploiting vulnerable people.
In terms of the power of arrest for all breaches of civil injunctions, on the whole most of our members are not particularly swayed by that because the power of arrest is a very serious tool. It requires the police to conduct that power of arrest, and it will mean significant resource implications for the police. Not only that, but we would have to get past the courts on proportionality and reasonableness for the power of arrest to be attached to any clause. It would also significantly impact on the court system, particularly if someone was arrested. They would have to be presented to court the next day, so there would be issues around cells and also the management of community expectations once we had got an injunction with the power of arrest. For the CSOs who enforce breaches of community protection notices, it was felt that this would be positive because having more resources with which to be able to enforce those breaches would be welcome.
Alex Norris
Q
Rebecca Bryant: Yes. I would like to bust a few myths, if that is possible while giving evidence. There is a perception in the media and the community that young people are the main perpetrators of antisocial behaviour when, in fact, they are not: the vast majority of antisocial behaviour is perpetrated by adults.
In focusing on young people, we should be thinking about how they are impacted by antisocial behaviour. They are often victims. You will have seen terrible films on TikTok and social media outlets of fights, violence and aggression. That means that those young people are victims rather than perpetrators as a whole. We certainly need to recognise that if we can get in early and use the early intervention and prevention tools available to us to stop the antisocial behaviour or stop those young people becoming antisocial, we will be able to reduce antisocial behaviour as a whole.
Antisocial behaviour is often a precursor to more serious crime, so if we can use our opportunity—I call it a “golden moment”—to intervene with a young person, perhaps with an alternative trusted adult from outside the home, and work with them to understand the impact of the behaviour that they may be perpetrating, that in itself does not fall into the idea that we should be reducing the CPN to the age of 10.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Laura Farris)
Q
Harvey Redgrave: I am in favour of this measure. I think it was used relatively effectively under the last Labour Government in relation to prolific offenders. [Interruption.] Sorry, do I need to speak a bit louder?
The Chair
Please try to speak up a bit.
Harvey Redgrave: I am in favour of the measure. It is right to test more offenders, particularly prolific offenders, many of whom are driven by addiction. The more we can divert offenders into treatment to address their offending behaviour, the better. I think there needs to be a broader look at how we deal with prolific offenders who recycle around the system sometimes tens or hundreds of times before they stop their offending. There used to be something called the prolific and other priority offenders programme, which was disbanded along with the whole infrastructure around it.
There is a need to place this drug-testing measure within a broader set of interventions that look at how we grip prolific offenders, how judges are able to defer sentencing, and how offenders are able to be rehabilitated and dealt with much earlier on rather than them serving short sentences, coming out, reoffending and going back in at great expense to the taxpayer.
Laura Farris
Q
The other question I wanted to ask is about Crest Advisory’s role in Baroness Casey’s review—again, if you were not personally involved in that, you can correct me. I think Crest Advisory played some role in supporting her review into the misconduct issues in the Met police, and there are two provisions in this Bill that at least partially respond to that. I would like to look at clause 73, which is on ethical policing and the duty of candour. In the light of your work with Baroness Casey, do you think it is important, and if so why? What does it answer in relation to her findings about failings in the Metropolitan police?
Harvey Redgrave: To clarify, some of my team at Crest Advisory were seconded in to support Baroness Casey on her review, but obviously she led the review and wrote it herself. It is really important that we look at the ethics and systems around misconduct within policing. There is a crisis of public confidence in policing at the moment, particularly among women. The Commissioner of the Met has spoken repeatedly about wanting to have more say and control over getting rid of officers when there are cases of misconduct, and I think the Government have acted on some of that.
I support the measure, but I would argue that there is a case for going even further and looking at the whole system around vetting and how that takes place within policing, and the system of who really upholds the professional standards within policing. Which body do we hold responsible—the College of Policing, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, or the Home Office? It feels to me like there is a slight lack of clarity at the moment about where the buck stops on some of this at a national level, with each force able to adopt slightly different practices.
Laura Farris
Q
Harvey Redgrave: I think that it is helpful and is a welcome step, but I am not sure that, in isolation, it will be enough to bring about the kind of culture change that Baroness Casey believes is necessary, within not just the Met but policing as a whole.
Laura Farris
Q
Harvey Redgrave: It comes back to the question of whether the chief constable should have more discretion over being able to hire and fire people, and to be able to get rid of people they are unhappy with. We have created systems and processes over the last 20 or 30 years that have taken some of that discretion away. It is a balance, and we need proper professional standards to be upheld by the College of Policing. In general, I think it a good thing for there to be greater discretion for chief constables to be able to act when they believe there is misconduct within their force.
Laura Farris
Q
We heard from the Crown Prosecution Service this morning, and it said that it did not think such an offence was necessary because the mechanics of an assault charge apply anyway—obviously, with actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm, if that should arise. There is also a statutory aggravating factor for assaulting a retail worker. Do you have a view on this? If you do, could you set out what it is and why?
Harvey Redgrave: Shoplifting is a real concern and we need some deterrents in the system, but I am not sure that we get those deterrents through harsher sentencing. A bigger problem is whether we are catching offenders, charging them, and convicting them. All the evidence shows that for this type of offending, it is swiftness and certainty that deter rather than severity. Not many shoplifters are thinking about aggravating factors or how long they are going to spend in prison.
Laura Farris
Q
Harvey Redgrave: In general, the Bill probably focuses too much on sentence lengths and not enough on what is happening at the front end, around the police’s ability to catch, detain and bring offenders to justice. That is where I think the real gap is.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
Q
Rebecca, thank you for joining us this afternoon. In response to the shadow Minister, you raised questions about reducing the minimum age for community protection notices from 16 to 10, which is enclosed within clause 67 of the Bill. Do you agree that bringing 10 to 15-year-olds into the scope of CPNs provides an opportunity to halt a path into criminality that might otherwise occur? Combined with that, there is an opportunity to make other interventions to try to prevent the young person from getting into crime.
Rebecca Bryant: It is using a hammer to crack a nut. For 10 and 11-year-olds in particular who are on the cusp of causing antisocial behaviour, there are many other tools available to partners. I am not necessarily thinking about fining parents, because a lot of the young people who are involved in antisocial behaviour come from more deprived backgrounds, and breaching and fining is not going to enable change.
What we are looking for is a change of behaviour in the longer term. Yes, we are looking to prevent in the first instance, but then we look for change. Being able to engage with a young person and their parents by putting in positive mentoring and other youth interventions would surely have longer term success than a community protection notice would have. Also, there is a community protection warning before a notice; that kind of warning and discussion between a parent, a child and the authorities, which could be the housing provider, the local authority or the police, has much more impact when you are offering a positive intervention.
Chris Philp
Q
Rebecca Bryant: More extreme antisocial behaviour is often a criminal offence, so potentially there would be criminality and therefore a charge. That may be welcome in some cases, but not a blanket reduction to say that anybody from the age of 10 could have a CPN, which could then lead to breach and fine. As I say, from our members’ perspective, that seems too young.
Chris Philp
Q
Rebecca Bryant: First, our members absolutely welcome the repeal of the Vagrancy Act. It is outdated and clunky, and has not been fit for purpose for many years. The replacement powers suggested in the Bill are generally welcomed by our members. I think there is some movement around more community rehabilitation. The people we are talking about here are particularly vulnerable members of society who have been through significant trauma or who have significant mental health problems, drugs and alcohol addiction, and their behaviours and rough sleeping are due to those underlying facts. Thinking about community rehabilitation and support to change is as important as moving people on and creating the powers to do that.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Q
Harvey Redgrave: No, it needs to be attached to more resourcing.
Jess Phillips
Q
Harvey Redgrave: I am assuming there is an impact assessment and a cost that has been attached to the Bill.
Jess Phillips
Q
Harvey Redgrave: I do not think it would be able to happen if you took current resource levels as the baseline. Some piloting is already going on in some forces, I think. I do not know how much of that has been allocated in future years.
Jess Phillips
Q
Harvey Redgrave: No. It is a good step forward, but not sufficient.
Jess Phillips
Q
Harvey Redgrave: I would agree, yes.
Jess Phillips
Q
Harvey Redgrave: Sorry—I would agree with the premise of your question.
Jess Phillips
Q
Harvey Redgrave: If I could also add one further thing on violence against women and girls—
Jess Phillips
Please feel free.
Harvey Redgrave: One of the good developments that has taken place in the last couple of years is Betsy Stanko’s work on rape and Operation Soteria, which is now being rolled out across the country. As you know, it takes a new approach to the way that rape is investigated. There is a very good case for widening that to look at all violence against women and girls, because some of the same principles apply. I would look very closely at whether that requires legislation, and if it does not, at what is required to broaden that approach.
Jess Phillips
Q
Harvey Redgrave: Potentially.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Q
Rebecca Bryant: Yes, it is.
Vicky Ford
It is not a unanimous view from your members.
Rebecca Bryant: No, it is not a unanimous view. There are some mixed views. Some people represented by some organisations suggested reducing the age to 14 rather than 10, particularly when we are talking about the 10 to 13 age group, who are particularly young. Yes, of course they have criminal responsibility in this country, but we are talking about antisocial behaviour here rather than—
Vicky Ford
Q
Rebecca Bryant: Yes, that is what I am saying.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Q
Harvey Redgrave: I suppose it is more about saying where I think the priority should be. I do not have a particular problem with increasing sentences for shoplifters; it is just that I do not think that that is where the biggest challenge is.
Stephen Metcalfe
Q
Harvey Redgrave: I think it is fine; I do not have a problem with it. I am broadly supportive of it, but I do not think it will act as a particular deterrent when we are not catching enough shoplifters to begin with. That would be my slightly—
Stephen Metcalfe
Q
Harvey Redgrave: Yes.
Stephen Metcalfe
Q
Rebecca Bryant: No.
Stephen Metcalfe
Q
Rebecca Bryant: Yes, I think so. When I say it was not unanimous, I am saying that a few members said that they agreed with 10. The vast majority said that they did not.
Stephen Metcalfe
Q
Rebecca Bryant: I would suggest that if the behaviour were serious enough to warrant a CPN at the age of 10, there would be other significant issues within the family environment. You would be looking at a huge range of interventions. Unless a particular scenario is presented, it is quite difficult to say what type of intervention you would try in order to reduce or stop the antisocial behaviour, but I do not want to get away from the point that early intervention and prevention work. If we invest in early intervention and prevention, you would expect antisocial behaviour cases involving young people to reduce. The enforcement side would therefore become less necessary.
Stephen Metcalfe
Q
Rebecca Bryant: I think it is unnecessary, and I think you will find it is very rarely used. There are other enforcement tools and powers available for young people that are also rarely used, because the focus of the sector is very much on early intervention, prevention, restorative justice and community remedies. There are all sorts of other tools that are perhaps more appropriate, particularly for dealing with young people who are on the cusp of causing antisocial behaviour.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Q
Rebecca Bryant: Look at how we respond to antisocial behaviour. It is a partnership response—things like Supporting Families, which used to be Troubled Families, and those types of interventions and support provided to the whole family, which are trauma-informed and understanding of adverse childhood experiences, and recognise that behaviour is often a symptom of something happening within the family environment. We should be taking a whole-family approach, rather than looking at a young person, a 10-year-old, as an individual on their own. There is something there about the drivers of why that young 10-year-old is behaving in the way that they are. It is much more complex than focusing on a specific incident perpetrated by a child at the age of 10.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Rebecca Bryant: That is a fair assessment. Civil enforcement powers do not enforce; all they really do is set out very clearly how society expects individuals to behave. There is an expectation when that order is given that the person is able to comply. If a young person aged 10 or 11 is perpetrating and demonstrating this type of behaviour, are you setting them up to fail if you are not thinking about different sorts of interventions and support? You could think of supporting the parent to become a better parent, able to set boundaries and support longer term change, or using other trusted adults and other types of intervention and remedy to support that young person to change.
The Chair
Thank you. It looks like there are no further questions from Members. I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Andy Marsh and Andy Cooke gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Andy Cooke: Good afternoon. I am Andy Cooke, His Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary and His Majesty’s chief inspector of fire and rescue services.
Andy Marsh: Hello, I am Andy Marsh, the chief exec and chief constable of the College of Policing of England and Wales.
Alex Norris
Q
Andy Marsh: I am of the view that there has not been enough rigour in the way in which vetting responsibilities and duties have been conducted. I am also of the view—significantly because of high-profile cases, but also because of inspection work by Andy Cooke’s team—that not only have vetting processes been inadequate but they have not been complied with. The College has done two things as a start: we have rewritten the code of practice for vetting to introduce new standards, and we are about to launch a new authorised professional practice for vetting that will set new, more rigorous standards across England and Wales that address all of the areas for improvement addressed in Mr Cooke’s inspection report.
Is that enough? In my opinion it is not enough. When the spotlight moves on from this important area of safeguarding the public and the reputation of policing, will chiefs and police forces continue to apply the scrutiny and effort that is going into this at the moment? It is my intention—I have expressed this—for this to be an area of service provision that is high-risk and which the College proposes to license or authorise in each force vetting unit each year. There will be training and support for personnel, and there are good people in those force vetting units, but in my plan, if they do not achieve the required standards, they will not be allowed to do vetting. It will have to be done by another police force.
Alex Norris
Q
Andy Marsh: I am unlikely to put a new time limit on the period of vetting, because I think in the 21st century when people—I am talking about all employees and police officers—commit a misdemeanour or when something occurs that throws into doubt their vetting status, that happens in real time, and our vetting systems should be good enough to pick them up in real time as well. We cannot wait for periods of time.
I used to be responsible in England and Wales for firearms licensing, and that period I was responsible for saw a shift in doctrine from revisiting a licence every three or five years to revisiting someone’s safety to hold a weapon 24/7, 365 days a year. Our approach in principle, while complying with the code of practice and the authorised professional practice on vetting, is that there will be time thresholds for hard stops on renewal, but in my opinion and assessment, there is an expectation that vetting should be under constant review.
Alex Norris
Q
Andy Marsh: I do.
Alex Norris
Q
Andy Cooke: I am fully supportive of the College’s desire to license vetting officers to practise. As you are well aware, the vetting inspection we conducted not too long ago had more recommendations than any inspection previously done. It showed policing in a pretty poor light. Some forces were doing okay, but overall it was not sufficient to protect the public or the reputation of policing. If policing cannot be sure it has the right people in it, that is a sad indictment on the force or forces across the country. There needs to be a continued focus on this area of policing. Licence to practise will assist in that, and the inspectorate will continue to look at these issues right across the forces across England and Wales.
Alex Norris
Q
Andy Cooke: It is a power that will need to be closely monitored, but it is a power I am supportive of. The ability to recover stolen property in such circumstances is a real issue if policing is going to catch the people it needs to catch, particularly around the likes of mobile phone theft, which is endemic across large parts of the country. The inspectorate will obviously keep a close eye on it as part of the legitimacy of policing and the ethical context in which policing is conducted. It will form part of future inspections when necessary.
Chris Philp
Q
Andy Marsh, can I continue the line of questioning about the warrantless power of entry where it is necessary to recover stolen goods when there is no time to get a warrant? Andy Cooke just mentioned that the inspectorate would keep a close eye on whether that power, if granted by Parliament, is being exercised properly. Could you confirm for the Committee’s benefit whether you would in due course, if this were passed, produce some authorised professional practice to make sure that police forces exercise the power in a way that is responsible?
Andy Marsh: Minister Philp, as you are aware I am strongly supportive of police officers conducting all reasonable lines of inquiry to catch criminals and keep communities safe. It caused me great frustration as a chief if ever a letter landed on my desk to say, “My bike’s on sale on eBay, my daughter’s phone is in a house and you said you couldn’t do anything”.
We have already started our plans to hardwire this new power into our guidance, our training and our standard setting to do our very best, along with working in partnership with His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services to ensure that we use this power consistently in two respects. I do not want to see circumstances where the power should be used, where it is not and people could be caught and property returned; and I certainly do not want it to be used in such a way that would undermine confidence in policing. As in many things in policing, we need to get this just right. The College has a fundamental role in achieving consistency and getting it just right.
Chris Philp
Q
Andy Marsh: I do.
Chris Philp
Q
Andy Marsh: I am.
Chris Philp
Q
Andy Marsh: It should be a very significant moment in policing. The first code of ethics was put in place in 2014. I could explain to the Committee why we think we are able to improve on that, but we have to talk about why it is going to make a big difference. The College is able to put a code of practice in place which requires a chief constable to have due regard.
We wanted to make that code of practice as strong as possible around a duty of candour, but there were many other things in it—for example, a duty on a chief constable to ensure ethical behaviour in a force, through their processes, policies, reward recognition, promotion, application of the victims code, challenging unprofessional behaviour, looking after staff welfare, dealing with misconduct and vetting properly.
Even before we get to the duty of candour, which is very strong, this is the strongest lever the College of Policing can pull in order to bring about cultural change around standards in policing. We will be working with the launch of the second two parts of the code in January, which is different from the legal code. We will be working on supporting policing over a change programme to secure that cultural change, over many months—possibly years.
Chris Philp
Q
As you know, we made assaulting a public-facing worker a statutory aggravating factor for other assault offences in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. We have already created a separate offence of assaulting emergency workers. Some people now say that we should have a separate offence for assaulting a retail worker, to give it more prominence. Others say, “Well, where do you draw the line?” You could have an offence for assaulting a teacher, a local councillor—and so it might go on. What is your opinion about whether there is any use in creating that separate, stand-alone offence?
Andy Cooke: I think I am right in saying it is an offence in Scotland, but I do not know how much that has resulted in a change in offending behaviour. I have not particularly looked at that point. It is a question of where you draw the line. The key issue is not whether a new offence should be constructed for assaulting a shop worker. It is more about how well, or not, policing is dealing with assaults, full stop; and how well police officers are dealing with the offence of shoplifting and the ancillary offences that sometimes go with that. I am aware that the National Police Chiefs’ Council is doing an awful lot of work around this at the moment, working with the PCC for Sussex and yourself, Minister.
Certainly, there has been a large reduction in the number of positive outcomes or detections for shoplifting over the last five or six years. That is not acceptable. It is in line with an awful lot of the other core charge and outcome rates that we have seen across policing. This is more about ensuring that the police across England and Wales treat this more seriously, particularly where there are aggravated offences alongside, such as assault. That is what Chief Constable Amanda Blakeman is attempting to do on behalf of the National Police Chiefs’ Council. Rather long-windedly, to come back to your initial question, without seeing the evidence for how that reduces offences or increases detections, I would not necessarily be in favour of a separate offence.
Chris Philp
Q
Andy Cooke: All those issues will be captured by the police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy inspections that we do every two years on every police force across England and Wales. We will look at reasonable lines of inquiry particularly and at the overall outcome rates—not just charge rates, because the out-of-court disposals are important as well, as it is whatever is the best sanction to fit the individual and the community at the end of the day. We look right across that to ensure that policing is doing what it should be doing, as we do every week of the year, and will continue to do so.
This is a really important issue for me, because these are crimes that strike at the heart of communities and neighbourhoods. It is really important that policing gets confidence and trust back. Whether that is the confidence and trust of shop workers or across neighbourhoods and communities, whichever way it is, a large part of getting that confidence and trust back is by the police showing themselves to be effective in what they do. The police need to increase their efforts to do so.
Chris Philp
Q
Andy Marsh: The College is supporting policing with guidance around dealing with retail crime, particularly persistent offenders. I agree with everything that has been said: much more needs to be done in order to deal with this crime type.
In relation to the specific offence, I can see that there are two purposes to it. The first is that it might well act as a deterrent. The College of Policing holds the evidence base for policing. We cannot categorically tell you there is an evidence base for deterrence, but that would be one of the reasons for putting it in place. I think the second, more important reason is for Parliament to signal its concern about a particularly disruptive crime that damages the fabric of our communities and society. This sends out a signal that the police need to do better. I am supportive of the proposal.
Chris Philp
Q
Moving on to a proposal contained in clause 21, which relates to giving police access to driver licence records—particularly the photograph—which currently are only readily accessible for road traffic purposes. The idea is that they can be used for facial recognition searches, where an image is retrieved from a crime scene from CCTV. That might include a shoplifting offence. This would make the DVLA driving licence database searchable by the police, in the same way that other databases are, including for facial recognition purposes. In your view, both Andy Marsh and Andy Cooke, would that assist the police in investigations? Is that a measure you would support?
Andy Marsh: I am supportive.
Andy Cooke: Yes, I support it. What goes alongside that is ensuring that the actions of the police on facial recognition are ethical and lawful. I am a big supporter of facial recognition used in the right way, and I think that opening up that database would benefit the detection of crime.
Chris Philp
Q
Do you agree with the Met Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, in saying that this measure will help chief constables better to manage their workforce and root out officers guilty of misconduct where appropriate and where necessary?
Andy Cooke: It would certainly help in relation to that. At the moment, the only recourse is judicial review, which as we know can be exceptionally expensive and difficult, so I see no problem at all in having that right of appeal for a chief constable.
Andy Marsh: The code of ethics, which we have just been talking about, puts a responsibility—in fact, a duty—on a chief constable to discharge their responsibilities around standards, conduct and behaviour; and I have been in a position, as a chief, where I have not been able to do that because ultimately I haven’t had the decision on who I ultimately have serving alongside me as a police officer. They are not employees—they are servants of the Crown. I have found that to be a deeply unsatisfactory position, so I am supportive of this.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: Yes, I do. That is a periodic hard stop, let us say, where there is a full review, but there should be a number of different control measures, both automated data searches and a duty—a responsibility to report and self-report—that will occur in real time between those vetting periods.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: Whichever timeframe you chose, you could see reasons why it wouldn’t be right.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: Ten years is the current one. I think to change that without massively increasing the capacity of vetting units would be to, let us say, write a cheque they couldn’t cash.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: If you were to legislate then the police would have to find the money, and it is often—
Jess Phillips
And it is currently not available.
Andy Marsh: Difficult choices.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: I would say, “What is the best way of ensuring a trusted, ethical workforce that actually is enforcing highly frequent—I would debate highly frequent—more frequent, hard-stop vettings which would be very costly, with back-office capability?” That might, in my opinion, not be the best way of doing it. I would rather move to a more agile, 21st-century—
Jess Phillips
Database, AI and so on.
Andy Marsh: Yes. So many of the searches that are required for vetting can be put into robotic processes, with ultimately the human being making the decision at the end.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: To directly answer your question, I don’t know. Possibly not.
Jess Phillips
The answer is no. I do know.
Andy Marsh: But actually, if you had a multiple domestic abuser, I am pretty confident that they would be flagging on other systems.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: Excepting that.
Jess Phillips
Okay. Excepting the four in five that don’t come forward.
Andy Marsh: I take your point.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: Yes.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: Will you permit me a little commentary, rather than a yes to that?
Jess Phillips
Go for it, mate.
Andy Marsh: I will tell you an anecdote, which I think will explain why this is dangerous. People can use the police complaints system for reasons other than simply securing justice and fairness for having been treated unfairly. As chief constable of Avon and Somerset, I became aware of two reports that I had in fact—and you will be shocked by this—raped the police and crime commissioner, Sue Mountstevens. I certainly had not, and the lady reporting that was in a mental ill health institution, but the crime recording rules required the police force to record that there was a rape, and I was named as a suspect. I would have thought that it would be farcical, wouldn’t it, for me to be suspended under such circumstances, given that there was not a grain of truth in that? There is a danger—
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: Fairness and justice are for everyone, particularly victims of violence against women and girls; if you look at everything I have said and done in my career, you will see that that is what I genuinely believe. However, I believe that an automatic suspension would be swinging the pendulum way too far. I have given you a very simple example, which is of course ridiculous. What I have learned through 37 years in policing is that there are many, many different shades of ambiguity around situations.
Jess Phillips
I too will give you—
Andy Marsh: Very rarely do we find right and wrong.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: That is shocking and disgraceful, and it should never have been allowed to happen.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: In the circumstances that you just described, of course. But I will say to this Committee that I think each case should be treated on its merits, with a very low threshold for suspension.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: I can write to you with that information, but I am afraid that I do not have it to hand.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: I do not think I said that I was confident that all the powers in the Bill could be implemented. I was answering the question about traceable property and the power to gain entry—that was the element that I was confident about.
Jess Phillips
Q
Andy Marsh: I am supportive of the measures in the Bill. Some will undoubtedly come with a requirement to increase the resource.
Jess Phillips
Such as?
Andy Marsh: The drugs testing would be a good example. I do not believe that there is currently a latent capacity waiting to do that.
Jess Phillips
There is currently not the capacity available to do that.
Andy Marsh: No.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Q
Andy Marsh: Well since you make the observation, I am not sure, as a police officer, that most police officers would agree that the standards of conduct in Parliament are necessarily higher than the standards of conduct for a police officer—if you don’t mind me saying.
Mark Garnier
Q
Andy Marsh: The College of Policing is responsible for a number of different products to support the professional standards that are maintained within policing. In relation to violence against women and girls, we conducted a super-complaint review in partnership with the Independent Office for Police Conduct and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, and we found a number of weaknesses and flaws in the way that, for example, allegations of domestic abuse against police officers were dealt with.
We are working very hard to tighten up those shortcomings and make improvements. In fact, the lead for the violence against women and girls taskforce, Maggie Blyth, is now working as my deputy and using all the levers at the disposal of the college to hardwire those standards into the way we go about our business. I would challenge any suggestion that we have a soft attitude to violence against women and girls.
Mark Garnier
Q
I wanted to follow on from Minister Philp’s questions earlier about powers of entry, because I was fascinated by your response. You mentioned that you might see that somebody obviously has an iPhone in their house—it has been stolen and then found on the Find My iPhone app, so there is very hard evidence that it is definitely there, but a police officer cannot do anything about that. You mentioned similarly a bicycle that could be for sale—a daughter’s bicycle for sale on eBay, for instance. You talked about how you would give guidance to police officers on how they go about enforcing this, but I came away slightly more confused; this is more me as a layman, trying to understand how you go about doing your business.
What struck me is that at the one end of the scale through the Find My iPhone app, you are looking directly at a bleep that says, “This phone is in the front bedroom of this bloke’s house in Walthamstow” or wherever—other constituencies are available. You know for a fact that it is there because the electronic signature is there. If someone has a bicycle up on eBay, it is probably there because that is where the person is advertising it from, but you do not necessarily know for sure. At the other end of the scale, you have a hunch that somebody may have some stolen goods in their house, but you would obviously then get a search warrant. If you are writing the guidance, how do you find the point at which one side is very clearly, and the other is very clearly not, eligible for the powers of entry?
Andy Marsh: There is a continuum of reasonable grounds and belief, which is written into this proposed legislation, that is actually very strong. It is about as strong as it gets in the judgment of a police officer. We will give forces written guidance, probably in authorised professional practice, and we will give them material on which they can be trained face to face in the classroom and material that can be used online.
Without a doubt, there will be some scenarios that will need to be debated among the groups of police officers engaging in professional development. We will also put this in the initial training curriculum. I am sure, given my confidence that we can introduce some guidance and training that would ensure consistency, that we will see a testing, through the judicial process, of what that belief actually means. At some stage, I am pretty confident that we will end up with a consistent interpretation of what it means under different circumstances.
Mark Garnier
Q
Andy Marsh: It is my job, through the college, to ensure consistency. Within a bandwidth—Mr Cooke’s inspection reports show this for pretty much any aspect of policing—you will see forces that do more of something and less of something. Actually, it is my job to ensure that the good practice from the inspections conducted by HMIC is fed back into our guidance.
We have a practice bank which turns that good practice into examples on our website—I would welcome you all looking at that—for a range of things. That will be one of the ways in which we help forces interpret this. But I would not subscribe to any suggestion that it will be the wild west out there, and that you will have one force doing something completely different from another.
Mark Garnier
Q
Andy Cooke, there will be a number of people who are going to be worried that the police may take advantage of these powers in order to get around the trouble of getting a search warrant. How would you reassure my constituents that that is not going to be the case and that we can be confident that this is going to be used for the legitimate reasons, which I am sure Andy Marsh will lay out? How can we be confident that that is not going to be broken?
Andy Cooke: I think the first stage is the fact that it is an inspector’s written authority to do it, and it can initially be given verbally, but then the inspector has to put the name to that action and fully understand what the reasonable belief is to ensure that to happen.
Secondly, we will consider this as part of our inspection regime. When we look at the legitimacy of policing and at the powers of policing, we focus on stop and search and on use of force. We focus on the legitimacy of the powers that the police are using in any particular way. As this is a new power as well, if it is passed by Parliament, it will get particular attention from ourselves.
Mark Garnier
Q
Andy Cooke: I am confident it is the right thing to do and the right law to pass. Will mistakes be made? Of course they will. Police officers are human like everyone else. Is there a danger of it being misused in a very small number of cases? Potentially—but that is the same for any power that policing has, which makes it so important that the right people come into policing.
Laura Farris
Q
Andy Marsh: To explain the process, when a complaint is raised, internally and externally, the chief constable will have a delegated appropriate authority, which tends to be the deputy chief constable. They will have a pretty much weekly meeting, but sometimes it is a real-time daily meeting if something crops up that they need to consider.
The first thing that would happen is that a complaint would reach a threshold of gross misconduct or, indeed, criminal. Once it has reached that threshold, the deputy chief constable—the delegated appropriate authority—needs to make a decision about what should happen to that person. Should they be suspended? Can they continue with their duties? Should they engage in some degree of protected-type duty? What I can say, from my experience of working with police forces across England and Wales, is that the threshold and the tolerance before suspension has dropped substantially.
Laura Farris
Q
Andy Marsh: No, I am not expressing it clearly, because if it would appear to be a substantial complaint—a complaint which would undermine the trust and confidence of the public should that officer remain serving—then they should be suspended. Actually, I can reassure you, in all the cases that I am aware of and that I look at where there are allegations of violence against women and girls, I see a very low threshold for suspension, so if I have misled you at all, I am sorry.
Laura Farris
Q
Andy Marsh: Then they are very likely to be suspended, and I am really happy to write to the Committee and share the guidance and information—
Laura Farris
Q
Andy Marsh: It is very low. If I was accused of any form of domestic abuse, verbal or physical, or coercive control, I can guarantee you that I would be suspended.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Andy Marsh: In explaining this, I am in no way seeking to justify a lack of attention, but when a call is made to a police control room, they will triage it and they will use something called a threat, harm and risk matrix. If the offender has left the scene and no one is at immediate risk, that is unlikely to secure an immediate deployment. There is more likely to be a follow-up investigation. The retail crime action plan and guidance on our website, and all the focus on the use of images and facial recognition and on persistent offenders, is bringing a much sharper focus to an area of standards and police response that has slipped to an unacceptably low level.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Andy Marsh: Yes, that is very often the case. For example, if on the one hand you had an incident of shoplifting where the offender had left the scene—let’s say the items stolen were less than £50—but on the other hand you had a report of a domestic violence incident or some antisocial behaviour happening on the street right now, those two calls would be prioritised above the shoplifting.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Andy Marsh: When you look at the changes in crime type over the last decade, we have seen a very significant rise in what I would call complex crime and vulnerability. The answer is that the police need to be able to respond to complex crime and vulnerability, and they need to be able to secure the confidence of the public in their ability to deal with shoplifting. I am a big supporter of neighbourhood policing. We intend next year to introduce a professionalising neighbourhood policing programme, which will give neighbourhood officers, for example, not only the training and skills to deal with shoplifting, but the new powers on antisocial behaviour to keep their communities safe.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Andy Cooke: No, the law is not different. The aggravating factor is that it is inside your house, not in a public space. People may consider that one is worse than the other, but at the end of the day the offence is the same, unless there is a weapon involved, as it obviously becomes a different offence after that—in private and in public—but both are equally serious.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Andy Cooke: The law would not necessarily say so. It would depend on the circumstances, on the weapons used and on whether it was a public or a private place. An open shop is, to a great extent, seen as a public place. The point I am trying to make is that an assault on a shop worker in a shop is a serious issue, and policing needs to do better to respond to these issues. I do not think there is any chief constable in the country who would disagree with that.
You asked if it was a resource issue. If there were more police officers, then they would be able to respond to more issues. Part of it is around prioritisation; and chief constables are responsible for the prioritisation that they choose. Have chief constables across the board got that prioritisation right? In my view, no, because a lot of the neighbourhood crimes we see—the thefts, car crime, burglaries, robberies—for some time have not been given sufficient credence, nor sufficiently tackled, as we have seen from the very low charge and disposal rates.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Andy Cooke: I understand fully the point you are making. I think it might strengthen the response from the police, as opposed to strengthening the law. The question of whether there should be a separate offence for teachers or other people in the community has been asked already. There are enough laws to deal with this. It is the response from policing that needs to improve. The response from some of the retailers themselves—that is, the bigger retailers, who can afford to put more money into this—also needs to improve.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank our witnesses for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel. Thank you very much, the two Andys.
Examination of Witness
Dame Vera Baird KC gave evidence.
The Chair
We now hear oral evidence from Dame Vera Baird, former Solicitor General and former Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales. For this panel we have until 3.50 pm. Could the witness please introduce herself, for the record?
Dame Vera Baird: I am Vera Baird. As the Chair has just recited, that is my background. I am very pleased to be here; thanks for the invitation.
The Chair
I just gave the very briefest background.
Dame Vera Baird: Well, I’ve lived a long time—let’s be careful.
Alex Cunningham
Q
You are aware that the Victims and Prisoners Bill is still going through Parliament; it is hoped that it will be improved somewhat in the Lords. Can you offer a general comment on how you see this Bill providing additional solace for victims?
Dame Vera Baird: I think there are some bits of it that are good and perhaps will be very helpful to victims. The real problem with the Bill, if I may be really clear about it, is that it does not really contribute to solving the key criminal justice issues of the day, which are that charging has collapsed, prosecutions are few, there is a backlog of 65,000 at the courts—which has got worse, not better, since the end of the pandemic—and the prisons are full. There is no coherent strategy or provision in the Bill that is tackling any of those issues. Fine, there is some change to sentencing, but you have to appreciate how few people get as far as sentencing these days. I wonder whether we are not starting at the wrong end.
However, having said that—and I do say that, very strongly; and in that sense, the Bill is a disappointment—there are some bits of it that are very welcome.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I think that rationalising the way intimate images are dealt with is very good. The Law Commission has done a really good job of doing that. I think there are a couple of missing bits, which I could come back to later. Probably some of the aggravating sentence provisions are good, but I am worried about the fact that the Wade review has not been implemented as a whole.
There is a risk with the aggravations of sentence in domestic abuse without the mitigating factor in the Wade review. If someone strikes back after suffering coercive control for a long time, that should be a serious mitigation. I can easily see some of the aggravating provisions catching women, who will not be protected by the mitigation. Although some of the aggravations are fine, that is a real problem for women victims of coercive control—coercive control is 90-odd per cent. men on women; there is no doubt of that. That is the classic model of male-on-female, spousal domestic abuse. I am worried a little bit about that, but the basic provisions are reasonably okay.
I am pretty worried about prisoners going abroad. The problem with that is that it is permission without really knowing what permission is being given for: we do not know what kind of prisoners will go, whether it will be in the middle of their trial, whether it will be while they are still on remand or any of it. That is a little worrying. It is a bit of a mixed bag.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I am not sure what the grooming one adds; I think it just broadens it. If grooming is involved, it is already taken into account as an aggravating factor in sentencing. Perhaps we can do that with a person who might have abused a groomed child directly. Perhaps this provision broadens it so that if the person who fixes up the child is also groomed—perhaps become someone has gone through him, grooming is in the environment and so it will enhance the sentence. The Bill broadens this a little; if it does, it is a good flag to wave because we want to tackle grooming and make sure it is taken into account. But I do not see it as a major change.
The problem is where there is a victim of someone abusive, and the killing is brought about by the victim’s decision to try to leave—or to leave. So we are looking at aggravating the sentence of an abusive person when the victim has said she is going to leave. That is a classic model, which Jess knows all about: the eight steps to homicide. That has been well researched. Professor Jane Monckton-Smith talks about this: when the victim says she is going to leave is the most dangerous time. That is the time when killing happens, so it is appropriate to aggravate the sentence because of that position being there—it is commonplace.
The worry is that sometimes women who have been coercively controlled for a very long time and have suffered badly are also aware that their husband is being unfaithful with someone else. He says that he is going off with the other woman, and that can trigger her to kill him. Without the protection in the Wade review—to say that if she is being coercively controlled, that is a mitigation—what you will have done is to aggravate her sentence through this change, which is not a thing that anyone intends. It could do with just another quick look at how it will work.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I am honestly not sure about that; I have not given it much thought. It sounded like what we would expect to be there, so I do not think I have much of a comment.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Dame Vera Baird: As I am sure the Ministers know very well, this adds absolutely nothing to the current law. A judge can order somebody to come into court. If they do not, it is a contempt of court.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Dame Vera Baird: But you can already use reasonable force. As long as it is proportionate and necessary, the Prison Service is entitled to use reasonable force to fulfil the orders of the judge. If the judge says, “You must come” and you do not come, it is, No. 1, a contempt of court. And guess what the maximum sentence is for a contempt court? It is two years, exactly as it is in the Bill. If a person does not want to come and the officers regard it as necessary and proportionate to use force to bring them, they are entitled to do exactly that to fulfil the judge’s requirements. There is really no change here.
I well understand the sense from a victim that they want this moment—“Right, he’s going to face what he’s done now and I’m going to get some benefit from that.” But the reality is that you cannot capture somebody’s mind, can you? There are always risks that people who are dragged into court might be a nuisance. You can just imagine what could be done there. So it is a very difficult one to get right, although I understand the impulse to try to do this.
I think it was the former Lord Chief Justice John Thomas who suggested that a better way was to make sure that if the person does not come out of the cell, he is in a cell to which the sentencing can be broadcast. He cannot get away and the victims know that he has, as it were, faced his moment. Whatever he is doing—whether he is listening or he is not—they do not know, and that is the time passed.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I think they probably need to be strengthened quite a lot. I do not think there is anything in there that could criminalise somebody who provided a means for doing it as opposed to encouraging it. So if someone provides—I do not know—a knife or some drugs, I am not sure there is provision for that, and I think that is a big miss. This is a really worrying area and we need to legislate, and that is one of the good things in the Bill.
Laura Farris
Q
In that context, coercive control is making its way through in different forms. I have a narrow question about what you thought about the use of MAPPA—multi-agency public protection arrangements—in relation to the management of a serious coercive control offence.
Dame Vera Baird: I think it is good to state that formally. I am sure that it happens now quite a lot.
Laura Farris
Q
Dame Vera Baird: It is a strict regime and it is very carefully managed. The probation service is aware of the high level of risk. It is definitely beneficial for dangerous offenders, and the probation service has recognised domestic abusers. Even when they have not committed domestic abuse offences, it still recognised them as presenting that danger, if they are already in MAPPA. I am sure that the most coercively controlling offenders already go into MAPPA. It is not a closed box that you can only fight your way into through these five categories of offending. It is much wider than that, but let’s do it—fine.
Laura Farris
Q
Dame Vera Baird: That is a very interesting question, but they are better and they have positive bits to them, don’t they?
Laura Farris
A DAPO does allow GPS monitoring, for example.
Dame Vera Baird: That is an improvement on the current model. There will have to be close working between those who apply for the DAPOs and those who are running MAPPA to make sure that there is no overlap or missing bits and so forth. This cross-boundary working is going to be particularly important with that. But they are both good steps. I do think MAPPA is slightly redundant, but let us do it, and the DAPOs and those positive requirements are definitely a big step forward. What you said about the statutory instrument is really interesting—
Laura Farris
Lord Bellamy, today in the Lords—
Dame Vera Baird: Yes, that is really good to hear, but these are going into statute. Why is the protection for women only going into a statutory instrument, which frankly fewer people will ever get to know about? Why is it being done in that way? Why is it not in here with these?
Laura Farris
I will have to revert to the Committee on the answer to that, because I actually do not know.
Dame Vera Baird: Anyway, I am not supposed to ask you questions—[Laughter.]
Laura Farris
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I think it is bound to, yes. I have felt since their inception that DAPOs, because of those positive requirements, were likelier to be more effective than just the negative nature of whatever they were called—I forget what they are called currently.
MAPPA is an effective mechanism. You raise very interesting questions about how they will interact, and I just think it is about cross-working, really, between police and probation in particular. They have to work in IOM anyway, so they must have ways of working together that ought to be reasonably effective. But I hope that you will, as it were, as a Government draw to their attention the need for an understanding of how those mechanisms will work together, because that would be an important way to point out that it needs to be done effectively.
Jess Phillips
Q
Dame Vera Baird: No.
Jess Phillips
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I think it is a good piece of flag waving, and it ought to be something that ups the attention of the relevant parties. A lot of people do not get protected sufficiently by MAPPA.
Jess Phillips
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I do not know about the numbers, but it is not a foolproof system. When it works, it works well, I think, and it can be quite subtly tuned for particular kinds of offender. But I do not know that it works so well with domestic abuse generally. In fact, what does?
Jess Phillips
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I hope so. It is pretty straightforward. It started off with a nice private Member’s Bill, and it was good for upskirting, but it was very taken with the intention of the individual. Taking a photograph and upskirting—frankly, if you do it, it is a crime, I would have thought. Struggling to find out whether they had done it for their own sexual benefit or to sell it online or whatever: I do not think that matters. I think the Law Commission have got to, “If you do it at all—make an intimate image—it’s an offence. If you do it with that intention, it’s worse. If you do it with this intention, it’s worse,” and that looks as if it works well.
I do not know why deepfake is not banned. Everybody knows what that is. The Minister will tell me there is a Standing Order going through. You just gave me a shocked look. Deepfake is not in the Bill, is it?
Jess Phillips
No, deepfake is not in it.
Dame Vera Baird: So that is where you could have possibly even a performative person doing deliberately provocative, maybe naked actions. You can take their face off, put mine on instead and put that online. That is dreadfully, dreadfully damaging—every bit as much, possibly more, because of the potential bravado of the act, which would then be blamed on you. That needs making unlawful, and it needs dealing with.
The other problem is that there are no orders to get rid of the stuff that is online already. I asked Penney Lewis—who is coming presently, so she will tell you—why they did not try to tackle the question of taking down stuff. She said that their terms of reference relate to criminality, not the civil orders. My view is that there should be a new look at that, because the pain of being a victim of intimate images is knowing that they are online.
There is a heroic academic at Durham called Professor Clare McGlynn who has done a huge amount of work on this. The impact on somebody of knowing that there is a naked picture of them somewhere online makes them withdraw: they cannot face anybody new, because they think that inevitably they must have seen them online and will have a poor view of them. That is how it gets internalised.
So it is urgent. If the Law Commission was not asked to look at taking stuff down, which I understand is done effectively in Canada, it should be asked to look at it again, or you must find another mechanism for it. The pain is from knowing that it is still up.
Jess Phillips
Q
Dame Vera Baird: Now that I understand that the mitigation relating to being coercively controlled will go into law, at least at a lower level—although I do think it should be in this statute—I am less worried. There is some possibility, isn’t there, if it is about murder or manslaughter, because a lot of victims who have been coercively controlled and strike back are convicted of manslaughter—
Jess Phillips
Losing their parental responsibility, you mean?
Dame Vera Baird: Yes. That would be a woman who had been persecuted. You are talking about sex offences?
Jess Phillips
Yes, specifically sex offences. That bit of law is in the Victims and Prisoners Bill—the law on murder and manslaughter, which I believe has some carve-out. Not to inform the Minister of this, but that is the reason why it is going through the Lords today: the carve-out, which is in that Bill, not this one. But what I was talking about was a proposal to take parental responsibility away from men convicted of sexual offences against children.
Dame Vera Baird: I am less convinced by that, because the definition of a sexual offence may be quite a wide one. I think it needs some reflection. I appreciate that if there is a sexual risk order, you can have a man who is banned from being in touch with all children except his own.
Jess Phillips
I think that’s the problem.
Dame Vera Baird: That is the point, so it needs tackling. But just sex offences—does it apply to flashers or people online? I do not know. I think it probably needs tuning a bit.
Jess Phillips
Q
Dame Vera Baird: It is long overdue to be decriminalised, as it is in Northern Ireland. This Parliament decriminalised it in Northern Ireland. Why on earth is it still a criminal offence to do what is a tragic thing that nobody wants to do, and have a late abortion? The last time the offence was in play was quite recently: it was about six months ago. The Court of Appeal was amazingly benevolent towards the woman and accepted entirely that she needed support, not criminalisation. The Court of Appeal seems to be ahead of this Parliament on that at the moment. You used to have women from Northern Ireland coming over here for help with abortion; now, women from here go over to Northern Ireland to avoid the risk of criminalisation if they are a week late. It is quite odd.
The Chair
As there are no further questions, may I thank you, Dame Vera, for your evidence? We will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
Jonathan Hall KC gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who is joining us via Zoom. For this panel we have until 4.10 pm, so could Members keep an eye on the clock?
Alex Cunningham
Q
Jonathan Hall: There is only one measure that deals with counter-terrorism. It has to do with allowing released terrorist offenders of a certain category to be subject to polygraph measures. In principle, I suggest that polygraph measures for released terrorist offenders are a good thing; there was an evaluation by the Ministry of Justice in October that tends to support that. However, there are some significant reservations about the way the provision is being put before Parliament, which involves—impermissibly, I think—giving the Secretary of State powers that should belong to judges. This is a slightly technical point, but if you will give me a moment, I would like to explain it.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Jonathan Hall: What I am saying is that normally it is for judges to decide whether a person is a terrorist. That is what they do: either someone is convicted of or pleads guilty to a terrorism offence, or the judge makes a special determination that their offence, which could be something like robbery or assault, was done either in the course of terrorism or for the purposes of terrorism. But this clause would allow the Secretary of State to do that exact exercise in relation to people who were convicted pre-2009. You might well have someone coming up for release who went to prison having been convicted of a non-terrorism offence, but now finds themselves converted into a terrorist offender by a decision of the Secretary of State. The view I take is that that is really a function of judges.
In fact, if you look at the wording of the Bill, the Secretary of State will be allowed to be “satisfied”—not beyond reasonable doubt, just satisfied—on exactly the same test that currently applies to judges. There is obviously a fundamental issue there, which I can expand on, but there is also a really practical issue, because what is a terrorism offence is not always very obvious. Can I give you an example, so that this does not sound pie-in-the-sky and theoretical?
Alex Cunningham
Yes, please.
Jonathan Hall: I do not know whether the Committee recalls the Liverpool Women’s Hospital bombing, but there was a gentleman in 2020 who blew himself up in a taxi, and it looked like a classic terrorist attack. He was a Muslim, although it appeared that he had converted to Christianity, and he had a suicide vest packed with explosives. The police did a two-year investigation—he killed himself, so there was no prosecution—and they concluded that in fact it was not terrorism at all. He was simply affected by a grievance to do with not being granted asylum.
That shows you how difficult it is. I would be really wary about the Secretary of State being allowed to go back in time to look at all these old offences and say, “I decide that this was a terrorism offence.” The Bill does not give a right to be heard to the person who is going to find his conviction converted into a terrorism offence. It does not give the prosecution a right to be heard, which is actually quite important because the prosecution will often understand these things very well. It would allow the Secretary of State, I think, to act on the basis of intelligence that is not even shown. In principle, it seems to me wrong.
This issue has arisen before. I do not know whether the Committee is aware, but you will have people who were convicted of terrorism offences abroad; if they are British nationals, they will perhaps be deported to the UK after they have served their imprisonment. There is a provision in the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 that allows the chief officer to go to a judge and say, “Look: we think that this person was convicted of a terrorism offence that is the same as a terrorism offence in this country. Can you please certify that that is the case, or can you certify that the offence was committed in the course of terrorism?” If the judge says yes, that allows all the post-release measures—such as polygraph measures, with which this clause is concerned—to be applied. So there is a model that already exists for old foreign offences. Slightly ironically, the power that Parliament is being asked to create here would make the protections available to a domestic offender less than those that apply to a foreign offender.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Jonathan Hall: No, I do not think so at the moment. I am in constant contact with counter-terrorism police and the Home Office. I am not aware that the Government are looking for yet further types of measure; if they were, I think they would have sought to bring them in within this Criminal Justice Bill. All that this particular measure does is allow an existing measure, polygraphs, to be applied to a wider range of people. My beef with that is that it allows it to be applied to people who have never been convicted of terrorism, without it going in front of a judge. So I think that the answer is no.
Laura Farris
Q
Jonathan Hall: I was in favour of polygraph measures after Fishmongers’ Hall. It was partly on the back of one of my recommendations that polygraph measures were brought in. They always, or at least for a long time, existed for sex offenders. You will recall Usman Khan, who was clearly a very deceptive man. My view was that polygraph measures could be useful.
Laura Farris
Q
Jonathan Hall: Let us say that someone is in the community. They could be asked about their daily routine. The most likely outcome is that someone who is subject to a polygraph measure would feel that they have to tell the truth, and the evidence is that people who are subject to polygraphs make admissions. You could say, “Are you in touch with the well-known terrorist Jonathan Hall?”, and the effect of polygraphs tends to be that people go, “Actually, I am,” because they are worried about giving it away through the polygraph measure. That would give counter-terrorism police an amazing source of information to show that, contrary to what that person had been telling his probation officer, he was still in touch with the dangerous terrorist Jonathan Hall. That would allow new licence conditions, for example: if Jonathan Hall lived in a certain part of Birmingham, a licence condition could be imposed that prevented that person from going there.
Laura Farris
Q
Jonathan Hall: Yes. You are completely right. This is not about extracting evidence that can be used in a criminal trial; it is about extracting information that is relevant to the management of offenders. If you think about a released terrorist offender who is now serving their sentence in the community, what you want to know is what their pattern of life is, who they are meeting, where they are going and what their objectives are. Are they visiting shops that sell knives, for example? Usman Khan must have gone to a shop to buy knives and tape to create the weapons used to kill two people. There are lots of factual matters that they can be asked about.
One of the benefits of the polygraph, I suppose, is that ultimately it is not covert. While MI5 and the police may have covert monitoring, it would be quite hard for them to put that information to the suspect. If the suspect has made an admission—“Yes, I am going to meet Jonathan Hall, the well-known terrorist,” or “Yes, I am going to visit knife shops”—that can be put to the offender, and you can work on rehabilitating the offender.
The Chair
As there are no further questions, I would like to thank the witness for giving evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Professor Penney Lewis, commissioner for criminal law at the Law Commission. We have until 4.30 pm for this panel. Could you please introduce yourself for the record?
Professor Lewis: I am Professor Penney Lewis; I am the commissioner for criminal law at the Law Commission of England and Wales.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Professor Lewis: We are extremely pleased that there are measures from four of our projects in the Bill. Those are the provisions that I can speak about today. Those four projects are intimate image abuse; modernising communications offences; corporate criminal liability; and confiscation of the proceeds of crime. If I say a little about each of those—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Can we all check that our phones are on silent, please, and that they haven’t got a mind of their own?
Professor Lewis: I will start with confiscation, because that is the largest area of the Bill; the provisions are in schedule 4. The review aimed to simplify, clarify and modernise the post-conviction confiscation regime—in other words, the confiscation of the proceeds of crime after someone has been convicted.
We know that the current regime works in some cases, where it can result in funds being allocated to victims through compensation that can be paid out of confiscation, but there is still a fairly strong consensus among stakeholders that the current regime is inefficient, overly complex and in some cases ineffective, with weak enforcement methods. Our recommendations were aimed at improving the current system to give courts more powers to enforce confiscation orders and seize offenders’ assets, but also to limit unrealistic orders that can never be paid back and to speed up confiscation proceedings, thus allowing victims to receive compensation more quickly.
I will touch on the other three projects, which have a smaller number of measures in the Bill. As I think most of you will know, some of the recommendations that the Law Commission made on intimate image abuse were implemented in the Online Safety Act 2023: the offences of sharing an intimate image without consent and with no reasonable belief in consent; and threatening to share an intimate image. The other recommendations that we made were taking an intimate image without consent; and installing equipment in order to take an intimate image without consent. Those offences could not be included in the Online Safety Act because they are not communications offences, so this is really the second half of the implementation of our recommendations.
We aimed to provide a clear, coherent and cohesive set of offences that would cover all types of sharing and taking without consent, that would have one consistent definition of an intimate image and that would reflect different motivations that defendants might have for sharing and taping intimate images without consent, including cases where the defendant apparently has no motive. We recognise more serious culpability with motives of intending to cause humiliation, alarm or distress, or for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, but we also recommended criminalising cases where those motives cannot be proven. We are very pleased that those offences have now been included in the Criminal Justice Bill.
Briefly, corporate criminal liability is another example of the completion of implementation—something that we discussed in our options paper. It was not a full report, so it did not have recommendations, but it had a number of options. One was reform of the identification doctrine. You may know that the Economic, Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 included reform of the identification doctrine, which allows for the attribution of personal criminal liability to the corporation in certain circumstances where the person is a senior manager, so it expands that form of attribution. That could only be done in relation to economic crime in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, so the reform in this Bill basically expands that to include all types of crime for which a corporate liability may be appropriate.
Finally—yes, I am getting to the end of my answer—one offence in the Bill, which is encouraging or assisting a serious self-harm, is again the expansion of something that was the implementation of a recommendation for the Online Safety Act from our modernising communications offences project. That offence was included in the Act insofar as it was a communications offence, but it is also possible to encourage self-harm by handing somebody a knife, so this expanded offence in the Criminal Justice Bill includes that kind of more physical assistance. It is not restricted to assistance by way of communication.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Professor Lewis: Those clauses are not the implementation of any Law Commission recommendations, I am afraid. The Law Commission does not take a position on those parts of the law that we have not had the opportunity to investigate or to speak to stakeholders about. I am afraid I cannot help on that.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Professor Lewis: It is not something we have looked at in relation to that clause. I would take a very small opportunity here to mention that we are about to start a project on defences for victims who kill their abusers, so we will be looking at the kind of relationship that should qualify in relation to defences. We are aware that if, for example, one restricts it to intimate-partner violence, then one risks excluding “honour-based” killing, which can also happen in a family context. We are planning to look at that, but we have not looked at it yet.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Professor Lewis: I am really sorry to disappoint, but it is not something we have looked at. We did look at homelessness as a possible protected characteristic for the purposes of hate crime law when we did the project on hate crime law a few years ago, which you may remember. That was a really interesting and revealing experience, because when we first started talking to stakeholders, some of them, including Shelter, were quite opposed to the idea of including homelessness as a protected characteristic—they thought that it entrenched homelessness when we should be trying to remove it and prevent it.
When Shelter spoke to homeless people on our behalf, which was really helpful, and when we spoke to homeless people, they actually described a lot of very horrific criminal behaviour perpetrated against them, and they experienced that as a hate crime. They experienced it as involving hostility towards them because they were homeless. We have some experience of looking at that. Ultimately, we did not recommend the expansion of hate crime law; as you may remember, there was a lot of opposition to its expansion. But we certainly saw the benefit of making sure we spoke to homeless stakeholders in order to really understand their lived experience.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Professor Lewis: I am afraid that is not something that we have looked at.
Chris Philp
Q
Professor Lewis: Many paragraphs of the schedule do implement our recommendations. We are extremely pleased to see our recommendations implemented extremely swiftly. This project only reported over a year ago. We obviously do think that the changes we recommended would make a difference in the ways I mentioned earlier, which included improving enforcement and the ability to seize offenders’ assets, limiting unrealistic and in some cases unfair orders, and allowing victims to receive compensation more promptly.
We estimated at the time that the reforms could lead to an extra £8 million in funds being retrieved from criminals in England and Wales every year. That obviously helps to return more money that can be used on public services, for instance. I am happy to talk in more detail about specific recommendations if that would be helpful.
Chris Philp
Q
Professor Lewis: One of the things we thought was most important, in addition to trying to make the system more efficient, was to balance it with also making it more fair. In terms of efficiency, we recommended things like expediting the setting of a confiscation timetable, which is in paragraph 12, and creating a settlement process, which already happens informally—we call it EROC, which stands for early resolution of confiscation. That has been implemented in paragraph 13. We note also that better enforcement will improve the recovery of funds.
There have been several recommendations that have been implemented in order to improve enforcement. Enforcement plans, which largely implement our recommendations for contingent orders, are in paragraph 16; and allowing enforcement to take place in the Crown court as well as the magistrates court is in paragraph 17. We think that those will make the system much more efficient and will radically improve enforcement.
In terms of fairness, it is really important that orders accurately deflect a defendant’s benefit from crime. There are two ways in which we have recommended, and the Government have introduced clauses to implement, improving the fairness of confiscation orders. One concerns where someone has made only a temporary gain—for example, a money launderer who allows their bank account to be used to transfer £1,000,000 but gets paid £10,000 for doing that. When the gain is only temporary their benefit from crime is not really £1,000,000, given that they do not get to keep that. At the moment, orders can be made in the amount of the temporary gain and that recommendation has been taken up. I will find the paragraph for you in a moment.
Chris Philp
Q
Professor Lewis: I am happy to address that. The temporary gain issue is in paragraph 8. The other improvement to the calculation of benefit is in circumstances where the defendant has already disgorged some of the proceeds of their crime—so, for example, that may have been forfeited or seized by the state already. That should not be double counted, so that the defendant then has to pay back something that has already been seized by the state. That is in paragraph 5. We are very pleased to see those fairness recommendations, as well as the efficiency gains.
In terms of deadlines, ultimately there is a deadline: it is called the default term of imprisonment. When a confiscation order is made against a defendant, a term of imprisonment in default is set. The defendant may end up serving this period of imprisonment if it is activated by the court, on the basis that the defendant has demonstrated either wilful refusal to pay the confiscation order or culpable neglect in failing to pay it. The defendant can of course secure release from the default term by paying the confiscation debt. In the consultation paper we cite a case where, as the person is being taken off to prison, finally the confiscation debt is settled. So, we do know that that does work—at least, anecdotally.
In the consultation paper we provisionally proposed something that would be even more stringent than that. At the moment the defendant is released halfway through the default term. After that, there is no more threat of imprisonment. We provisionally proposed that the defendant should be released only on licence, similar to the way in which life prisoners are released, for example. I think that was probably our most controversial proposal. There were some people who were in favour of that, but lots of people thought it extremely draconian; another sector thought that it really would not work, and within that was His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. In other words, probation is not really designed to get people to pay their confiscation orders; it has another purpose. It has a rehabilitative purpose.
Ultimately, we decided that there are better ways to try to ensure enforcement. So, yes, there is the default term that remains, and that is a real threat to defendants. However, we also recommended confiscation assistance orders, requiring the defendant to attend enforcement hearings after the default term has been served and requiring the provision of financial information with penalties for non-compliance or providing false information. The first two of those—assistance orders and requiring the defendant to attend enforcement hearings after serving the default term—are both in schedule 4.
Chris Philp
Q
Professor Lewis: Again, we do not have a view; it is not something that we have looked at. Obviously, in our hate crime project we looked at circumstances where sentences were aggravated because of hostility towards a protected characteristic, and we recommended equalising the protection that the various protected characteristics carry so that every protected characteristic would have aggravated offences, as well as enhanced sentencing for those offences that do not have aggravated versions. However, we have not looked specifically at the individually aggravated offences such as the ones for assaulting a police officer and so on, I am afraid.
Chris Philp
Q
Professor Lewis: We do not have a corporate view, because we have not done work on it. You are right to worry that one is drawing very fine lines, and once one has added one offence, there is another group of people who are not included in the bespoke offences. One ends up with a proliferation of bespoke offences for different categories of function.
Chris Philp
Q
Professor Lewis: I do not think that I would go further than that. I think that concern should be considered, but I do not think that I am in a position to have a personal view, having not looked at it in any depth.
Jess Phillips
Q
Professor Lewis: Missing from the projects that are implemented or missing from other projects?
Jess Phillips
Q
Professor Lewis: No. We are still awaiting a Government response on the vast majority of our recommendations in the hate crime report.
Jess Phillips
For example, women—
Professor Lewis: No, that is the one they responded to, because we recommended that sex or gender not be added for the purposes of aggravated offences or enhanced sentencing. You may remember that there was a statutory requirement for the Government to respond to that, and they responded accepting our recommendation not to add it. They have not responded to the rest of the recommendations, including our recommendation that there should be an offence of stirring up hatred on the basis of sex or gender as well as equalising the treatment of all the other protected characteristics in relation to stirring up hatred.
Jess Phillips
Q
Professor Lewis: I cannot comment on whether it could have been in the Bill.
Jess Phillips
You can put anything in it if you want— I am going to.
Professor Lewis: It is not in the Bill, and we await a response from the Government on the vast majority of our recommendations.
Jess Phillips
Q
Professor Lewis: I have to accept—in fact, I am pleased to accept—that in terms of projects that I have worked on, more than half of them have been implemented in the last year. The implementation rate of Law Commission criminal law projects at the moment is—
Jess Phillips
That is good to hear.
Professor Lewis: We are really pleased to be able to work with the Government to implement our recommendations in so many projects; I think it is five in the last year.
Jess Phillips
Q
Professor Lewis: Compensation for victims is a really important issue and one of the things that we recommended in the confiscation project, because compensation was not part of that project directly, is that there needs to be a separate review of compensation for victims.
None the less, we made recommendations where there is overlap. For example, we described it as giving priority to the payment of compensation. We recommended that where a compensation order is imposed at the same time as a confiscation order, the Crown court should be required to direct that compensation should be paid from the sums recovered under the confiscation order. At the moment, that happens only if the defendant does not have enough money to pay both orders, but we recommended that, even if the defendant does have enough money, the first lot of money should go on compensation.
Similarly, when multiple confiscation orders are imposed, priority should be given to the payment of compensation and after that to the confiscation orders. Paragraph 11 of schedule 4 basically implements those recommendations, saying that the court “must direct” that
“sums recovered under the confiscation order”
be applied to “ priority order (or orders)”. Priority orders are defined in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 as including compensation orders. Therefore, although you may not see the word “compensation” in that paragraph, it very much is in there, and the paragraph prioritises the application of funds to victims, whether that means that you as an individual victim are seeking compensation funds—
Jess Phillips
Q
Professor Lewis: Yes.
The Chair
Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witness for the time that she has given us today.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)
Media Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 12th December 2023
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Media Bill 2023-24 View all Media Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2023 - (12 Dec 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Government amendments 13 to 15
Clause stand part.
Schedule 9.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I am pleased to finally address clause 48, which I am happy to support. I will begin by outlining why this part of the Bill is so important.
The introduction of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill was welcomed by Labour, which has led the way in calling for large tech companies to be properly regulated and for the need to ensure competition in digital markets. However, although the DMCC Bill contains a package of measures to protect consumers, enhance innovation and unlock growth, it is cross-economy legislation that is not tailored to the unique challenges faced by UK radio services.
The Government have recognised that in an age of shifting consumption habits, there is a need for provisions that protect our public service broadcasters, so it was absolutely vital that the Media Bill did not miss the opportunity to provide protections for radio, too. As has been mentioned, radio stations are of great importance to 50 million weekly listeners from all corners of the country, so it is vital that as technology rapidly evolves, people in the UK are guaranteed access to the radio services they know and love. The new regime set up by the Bill does not seek to give radio undue benefits, but rather looks to preserve the current state of play, in which such services can be listened to at first request and without unneeded interruption. That is for the benefit of listeners.
That means that voice-activated platforms cannot play their own playlists or services when a customer requests an Ofcom-licensed radio service, or overlay their own advertising into radio broadcasts without the permission of the broadcaster. Interruptions will be allowed only if a listener has explicitly made a request to be notified, for example through an alarm or call. That is important if radio services are to reach their listeners and continue to secure advertising revenue, and important for platforms, which will be able to ensure that their customers’ requests are dealt with precisely. Indeed, it hardly seems favourable to platforms to allow their customers to become frustrated after not receiving a service that they have requested multiple times through a voice command.
Importantly, the Bill has retained the requirement on designated radio selection services to use a broadcaster’s preferred way of delivering their station to listeners —for example, they might want it delivered via the BBC Sounds app, or through the Global Player. That vital safeguard will ensure that radio services can access the valuable data they need to improve their services, innovate and best serve their audiences. However, I recognise that platforms have been concerned about the number of routes they might be expected to deliver. Google said in evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that it can take around a year of engineering and tech work to onboard a preferred route, particularly because listeners can ask for a station in various ways; for example, a listener could refer to the same service as “6 Music”, “BBC 6” or “BBC Radio 6”, or use one of a number of nicknames. However, as Radiocentre has argued, the vast majority of stations are covered by a small number of apps.
The explanatory notes to the Bill clarify that a preferred route may be ruled out if it is “unduly burdensome”. That balances radio services’ needs with platforms’ ability to realistically cater for those needs. I am hopeful that this clarification will provide a solid basis on which the regime can be built.
On radio selection services, the definition in the Bill is designed to capture smart speakers, but it can be amended by the Secretary of State via the affirmative procedure. We discussed why an ability to amend the definition is so important during our debate on the inclusion of car entertainment systems. I am also pleased that there is now a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult Ofcom when making regulations to alter this definition, as the Culture, Media and Sport Committee recommended. However, there has been some confusion about the existing definition and whether the regulations will apply to smart TVs and streaming players using voice activation. Can the Minister confirm whether such devices will be included? If not, could they be in future?
Turning to designated radio selection services, as I said in debate on my amendments 32 and 33, it is a shame that the CMS Committee’s recommendations on delegated legislation were not accepted. I am pleased, however, that it seems that there will be mechanisms for de-designating devices, to ensure the exclusion of legacy devices. That is beneficial for platforms and broadcasters, who would find it quite a burden if requirements applied where devices were no longer supported.
I do not have any particular problems with the lines in the Bill relating to the meaning of “internet radio service”, or the list of relevant internet radio services, particularly as there is now a power in the Bill to amend that definition through the affirmative procedure. However, as has been discussed, the Bill misses the opportunity to bring within scope podcasts and IP-only services.
Finally, I would like to raise concerns passed on to me by TuneIn, a radio aggregator that allows listeners to easily access online the radio stations that they want to listen to. It worries that without an explicit “must offer” requirement, the Bill risks unintentionally making it legal for a radio station to deny its service to any platform or device. TuneIn warns that, without a requirement on radio broadcasters to ensure that their services are always offered to platforms, devices and apps, there can be no guarantee that radio will be freely accessible across those platforms. That could threaten the entire premise of the regime outlined in this clause and, of course, potentially damage TuneIn’s business as a radio aggregator. I therefore ask the Minister whether the Department has considered the concerns of TuneIn, and whether he can guarantee that the Bill will ensure that radio is freely accessible across all platforms, rather than just a handful of platforms.
To conclude, there has been lots of contention over this part of the Bill, but I am pleased with its intent to protect radio services, and with the changes that have already been made to improve it and make it more workable. There are a few changes to delegated legislation that I would have liked to have seen, and a few questions to be asked around scope, particularly when it comes to the exclusion of podcasts and the devices covered. However, overall, I welcome the inclusion of this part in the Bill, and I look forward to seeing the regime in action, so that listeners across the country can continue to enjoy their favourite, trusted radio services.
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)
We have had a useful debate on one of the central parts of the Bill, and although the hon. Lady described it as one of the more contentious parts, I think there is widespread agreement on it. We were very grateful to the CMS Committee for strongly supporting the inclusion of these measures in the Bill, and since then, we have had extensive consultations with both the radio sector and the platforms. Some of the concerns expressed by platforms were not entirely justified, and I hope that we have been able to reassure them.
This part is focused on live radio broadcast, but obviously we will monitor the development of consumers’ listening habits, and there are powers available to broaden the scope of the Bill if it becomes clear that that is necessary. However, in summation, I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for her support, and to the rest of the Committee, and commend clause 48 to the Committee.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendments made: 13, in clause 48, page 102, line 12, after “service” insert
“or (as the case may be) a relevant internet radio service”
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 12.
Amendment 14, in clause 48, page 103, line 12, after “service” insert
“, or
(b) a person who was but is no longer a provider of a relevant internet radio service,”
This amendment and Amendment 15 enable OFCOM to give a confirmation decision to a former provider of a relevant internet radio service.
Amendment 15, in clause 48, page 103, line 13, after “service” insert
“or (as the case may be) a relevant internet radio service”—(Sir John Whittingdale.)
See explanatory statement to Amendment 14.
Clause 48, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 49
Penalties under Parts 3A and 3B of the Communications Act 2003
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clause 49 inserts proposed new schedules 16A and 16B, as set out in schedules 10 and 11, into the Communications Act 2003. These new schedules make further provisions about financial penalties and the liability of joint entities in relation to designated internet programme services, regulated television selection services, relevant internet radio services and designated radio selection services. In particular, schedule 16A sets out the principles by which Ofcom will assess penalty amounts and maximum penalties for non-compliance with the requirements on providers of those services set out in parts 2 and 6 of the Bill. For the BBC, S4C or a person who fails to comply with an information notice, the maximum penalty is £250,000. In all other cases, the maximum penalty that Ofcom can impose against providers of services is the greater of £250,000 or 5% of the provider’s qualifying worldwide revenue.
As is the case under the existing prominence regime, Ofcom will have responsibility for enforcing the new online prominence framework and that relating to radio selection services. It is therefore important that the regulator has a range of enforcement tools at its disposal for tackling contraventions, including the ability to impose a financial penalty. We believe that these provisions ensure that Ofcom can take enforcement action against the relevant provider in a proportionate and effective manner.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 49 introduces schedules 10 and 11, which provide further information about enforcement and how it relates to the new prominence regime for our public service broadcasters, as well as the new regime for radio services on smart speakers and voice-activated platforms. I will speak briefly about both schedules in turn.
Schedule 10 sets out how penalties for failure to comply with the relevant regimes will be calculated. The ability to issue penalties is an important backstop that will ensure compliance with the regime while incentivising mutually beneficial commercial partnerships. However, to secure the integrity of the regime, it is important that there is consistency and fairness in how the backstop can be used, so it is good to see set out in legislation the principles that Ofcom must apply when determining the amount of any penalty, as well as how maximum penalties will be calculated. It is right that these should have the potential to be significant—they can amount to either £250,000 or 5% of the person’s qualifying worldwide revenue—so that they can serve their purpose as an effective deterrent. I am also pleased that the schedule allows for those amounts to be adjusted, should they need future-proofing in any way. Any change would be subject to the affirmative procedure, which would allow for scrutiny. Overall, I believe that schedule 10 is a necessary consequence of the regimes that the Bill sets up, and I have no particular issues to raise with the way that they have been drafted.
Schedule 11 is an important extension of the backstop powers awarded to Ofcom. It sets out the liability of parent entities and subsidiaries, and explains how confirmation decisions, penalty notices or provisional notices may be issued to them. Having that clarification in the Bill will hopefully make for a clear enforcement framework for Ofcom, and will make clear the responsibilities on those to whom the rules apply, so I welcome the inclusion of the schedule, which is necessary to the introduction of the two prominence regimes.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 50
Awards of costs
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 50, page 112, line 33, at end insert—
“(4) This section does not have effect until both Houses of Parliament have passed a motion in the form ‘That this House is satisfied that an effective alternative method is in place of persuading publishers to become members of an approved regulator; and therefore approves the repeal of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.’”
Kirsty Blackman
I will speak fairly briefly. Clause 50 is contentious. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the lack of accountability of the press, particularly the national press. After the Leveson inquiry, independent regulation of the press was recommended. Impress was set up, and that system is working well; over 200 newspapers signed up to it, but not one of the national ones did. The whole point of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 was to ensure that newspapers signed up to Impress, and were regulated by that independent regulator—it is not the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which is not an independent regulator.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady, and I hope, time permitting, to speak on clause stand part. The amendment refers to “persuading”. Does she have any suggestion that she can share with the Committee on how publishers might be persuaded, given that although this sword of Damocles has been hanging over them for a very long time, none of them has signed up? Has she had any conversations with publishers of the national or regional press about how her ends might be achieved?
Kirsty Blackman
It is incredibly difficult to find a way forward. The hon. Gentleman is right that the issue has been left hanging. Perhaps the press never believed that the Government would implement section 40 and make it work. Maybe the sword hanging over them was not big enough. Whatever has happened, it has not persuaded them to sign up. My key request is that the Government persuades them to sign up, using whatever methods are at their disposal. It is important that we have independent regulation, and that newspapers sign up.
To illustrate the point, IPSO upholds fewer than 1% of complaints that are brought to it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever been through the IPSO process, but it is incredibly complex and difficult. It is supposedly set up in such a way that anybody can access it, but without the advice of a lawyer, it is very difficult for a person to ensure that their concerns are heard and their complaint is upheld by IPSO.
The Government should use all the tools at their disposal. They should be having conversations and doing everything that they can to persuade newspapers to sign up. Section 40 should be removed only when there is an alternative—unless, of course, the Government are going to totally dump the idea of having independent press regulation and just give up on this.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Surely one of the reasons for what my hon. Friend describes is that IPSO exists as an alternative. As she says, less than 1% of complaints are ultimately upheld—the figure I have is 0.3%--with cases taking on average almost six months to reach a ruling. There is a disincentive effect, and the turnout says it all.
Kirsty Blackman
That is absolutely the case. It is very difficult for people to interact with IPSO in the first place, so a significant number of complaints never even get to IPSO, never mind going through the process and then not being upheld. The current situation is concerning, but it is for the Government to ensure that the newspapers are properly regulated. It is for the Government to enact and ensure compliance with the outcomes of the Leveson inquiry. I would like to hear more from the Government about what they plan to do to ensure that newspapers are properly held to account and properly regulated, and thus increase the level of trust in our media and, as a result, in our democracy. Those two things are inextricably linked.
Amendment 41 is about trying to find a way forward. The Government will have to persuade the newspapers to sign up, and they will have to persuade the Houses of Parliament that they have done enough to ensure that the newspapers will sign up. If all the newspapers signed up, it would be easy to persuade the Houses that whatever method the Government put in place had actually worked. That is the outcome I would like to see: everybody signed up. Then neither House would have any problem passing this clause to get rid of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.
Rob Butler
I have listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, but, with great respect, I disagree with her. I will outline why I disagree with her and why I support clause 50. I do so from a couple of perspectives: first, as the current chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on media freedom, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries chaired before me, with rather more success and aplomb, I suspect; and, secondly, as one who spent the first 15 years of his career as a journalist. I also strongly supported the print media in its original campaign against state regulation, it is fair to say, including the provision of some professional advice at the time.
Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act has never been commenced. I suggest that, to some extent, that shows it is not necessary and it is therefore appropriate to repeal it. However, there is also an important point of principle here: freedom of the press is sacrosanct and must be seen to be sacrosanct. I am quite sure that each and every one of us on this Committee has seen articles about ourselves in newspapers or online that we disagreed with, that were not wholly accurate, and that we really did not like, but if those articles are fundamentally wrong or harmful, legal sanctions are already available to deal with them, notably the laws of libel. There is also IPSO, which I will come on to in a moment. The fact that newspapers publish articles that are sometimes uncomfortable is not in itself reason to impose the draconian sanction that section 40 would have wielded.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North suggests persuading newspapers to participate, but we have had a very long period in which it has been clear that they are not persuadable; any persuasion would therefore effectively be enforcement, which in turn is effectively state regulation. That is why we have been in this difficulty for a long time. When I spoke about this on Second Reading, I was asked why newspapers did not avoid the prospect of paying huge court expenses by signing up to an approved regulator under our royal charter, which is what the hon. Lady is suggesting. The answer is simple: not a single national or regional newspaper or magazine of any significance is willing to do that as a matter of principle, because they see it as state regulation. I have a great deal of sympathy with that perspective.
The secretariat for our APPG on media freedom is provided by Reporters Without Borders, which is a highly respected advocate for freedom of the press worldwide that campaigns tirelessly for journalists’ voices to be heard, sometimes at considerable risk. Reporters Without Borders was calling for the repeal of section 40 as long ago as 2016, and it continues to do so today. Its submission to the Government’s consultation on repealing section 40, which was held way back in 2016-17, stated:
“Section 40 would introduce an unprecedented chilling effect for publishers and journalists in the UK, leading to self-censorship and a reduction in public interest reporting. The essential role of the press in our democracy would therefore be undermined, as well as the scope for any writer to investigate matters of concern and national interest for the public.”
When the public were asked in that same consultation, they expressed a resounding desire for section 40 to be repealed: 79% of direct responses favoured full repeal, and the most common reason given was the “chilling effect” it would have on the freedom of the press.
Kirsty Blackman
When I was a councillor back in 2007, there was an article in the local newspaper that said that a fellow councillor and I had requested that Irn Bru be provided in the Members’ Tea Room. In fact, all that had happened during the course of that meeting was that a Conservative councillor had asked for Earl Grey to be provided. We went to IPSO, which said that the newspaper was allowed to write that story because it was just the cut and thrust of political discussion, even though it was blatantly false. If IPSO is so unable to uphold the truth, is there any point in anyone going to it?
Rob Butler
Strictly speaking, I would suggest that that was libel, so there were legal routes available, but—to pre-empt the point that the hon. Lady might make—I accept that that is a very lengthy and expensive process, and that it might be a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I would say that IPSO was wrong in the case. I am very open about it: if something is said that is patently untrue, IPSO needs to hold its members to account, and what the hon. Lady said to some extent undermines that. That is what IPSO needs to take on.
The News Media Association has provided us all with a briefing, much of which is compelling. I will not risk the wrath of Committee members by reading it out in its entirety, but I highlight a couple of points. For example:
“Section 40 would cost the national and local press an estimated £100 million a year to tell the truth. This would be particularly devastating for local publishers.”
In my earlier contributions in Committee, I have been clear that I am concerned to ensure that local news is genuinely local; I got very close to the position of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition on that point at one stage. We should not do anything that makes local news coverage more difficult.
There are perfectly legitimate concerns about behaviour of the press and opportunity for redress, but the regulatory landscape has fundamentally changed since section 40 was introduced. I worked with some newspapers at the time, and they sat up and took notice when the threat of this legal sanction was over them. Publishers and editors have recognised that they have to face up to their responsibilities, and IPSO is much tougher than what was there before. There are serious sanctions, including, ultimately, the £1 million penalty. I completely hear what the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Arfon have said about the difficulties of getting through that. There may be more to do to make IPSO effective and easily accessible, but that does not mean that we have to have state regulation, which would be going much too far.
Hywel Williams
How does the hon. Gentleman expect IPSO to be persuaded to be more amenable?
Rob Butler
What is influential is the understanding of where public opinion is. The thought that the public had had enough was effectively what played a very big part in influencing the regulation of the press. The press did not ignore Leveson; they were very conscious of what was going on. I would certainly have no hesitation in telling people in the media, “You need to recognise that what you have is not quite enough to satisfy legitimate public concern.” Particular examples are helpful; hon. Member for Aberdeen North has given me one, which I shall not hesitate to quote if I have such a conversation.
It is worth also saying that there have been two independent reviews of IPSO. They stated that it was effective and independent, notwithstanding hon. Members’ comments. The second found that IPSO’s
“supportive, but challenging engagement to improve standards”
was
“exactly what an effective regulator should be doing”.
There is an argument that, even if it is not perfect, the press has cleaned house itself.
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate the case being made by the hon. Gentleman and I understand his position. However, on his point, he is sort of blurring the lines between a state regulator and an independent regulator. He is using the term “state regulator” for Impress when the whole idea, outcome and recommendation from Leveson was to have an independent regulator.
Rob Butler
That is not how the press has seen Impress, because it is set up by statute. The press’s argument has always been that it is effectively state-sanctioned and state-imposed. We can call it independent, but the press has never believed that Impress truly would be independent.
As I said, I have to be brief as, with the Committee’s permission, I have been summoned to an important meeting in a few moments, so I apologise for a short absence. My final comment is that at a time when we see freedom of the press under ever-increasing threat around the world, not least in Russia, repealing section 40 and demonstrating that the state should have no direct role would be a powerful sign of the UK’s commitment to a media free of Government shackle or interference. I consequently oppose the hon. Lady’s amendment and fully support the clause standing part of the Bill.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Following my hon. Friend’s speech, I want to speak briefly on the issue, in which I have taken an interest over many years. The Minister is nodding and he will remember that I served as a member of the Committee he chaired in 2011 looking at the phone hacking issue and the inquiry that was held at that time. Twelve years or more have passed since then, and the media landscape now is very different.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury that having a statutory regulator for the press is not compatible with our media traditions in this country. The threat of commencing section 40, with newspapers having to pay their own costs and those of the claimant even if they won the case—such a provision does not exist elsewhere in English law—would impose an onerous burden, yet the threat of commencement has not forced newspapers to seek to create or go into regulatory bodies for the press. The debates we have here on statutory regulation of the media and the debates we continually have when BBC charter renewal comes up show that whenever we create a structure, no matter how arm’s length or benign, Members of this House have points of view about how it is operated, what goes in it and how it should change or be improved. That will continue to be the case. A statutory regulator is not compatible with having a free press.
When we had the Leveson inquiry, the idea of newspapers’ business models being hollowed out by big tech platforms that would destroy their ad-funded business model was not something we considered. Newspapers were then seen as being all-powerful, extremely wealthy and well able to pay whatever charges were levelled at them. The situation is very different now.
The other issue, which I am familiar with as a former chair of the APPG on media freedom, is the issue of lawfare, whereby wealthy people, particularly oligarchs, take spurious legal action against newspapers because of content they do not like, without worrying about whether the case meets any kind of threshold. The libel laws are not absolute; they are not an absolute true-or-false test. To win, the claimant has to demonstrate that what a journalist reported has materially damaged them and their reputation, but very wealthy people do not care about that. They are quite happy to enter into such legal cases now, and even the threat of such actions deters editors from publishing stories that might be in the public interest, for fear of the almost certain legal challenge that will come back against them from people with bottomless pits of money who do not care whether they win or lose. They just seek to grind the publication into the ground with ongoing legal costs.
Commencing a regime that may open the door to yet more litigation from people who, on the whole, can easily afford it anyway, which makes the chances of success greater and which makes the cumulative impact of the costs on those publications even greater, would diminish the power of the press considerably. That would lead to a chilling effect, which was never envisaged when the Leveson report was commissioned, of inhibiting the press for fear of the cost that would come from simply doing their job and reporting the truth.
Of course, the press make mistakes and get things wrong. Newspaper editors have legal liabilities for what they publish. Members of the Committee know from our lengthy debates on measures such as the Online Safety Act 2023 that it is easy now for people to publish all sorts of stuff for which they have no legal liability—and, before the Act was passed, nor did the platforms that pursued it. The challenge that many people face, be they in the public eye or members of the community, is far more likely to be harassment and intimidation through co-ordinated attacks on social media than reporting a newspaper they do not like.
Kirsty Blackman
Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the online world is now regulated differently from newspapers as a result of the Online Safety Act? I agree with the Online Safety Act and agree that there should be more regulation online of things that are illegal, but we do not have a change in the regulation of newspapers to ensure truthfulness and lack of harm, whereas we do have some more of that in the online world.
Damian Collins
That is why it was important that there is an exemption for media organisations from the regulatory powers that Ofcom will have through the Online Safety Act. The reason those exemptions were there was that newspapers already have liability for not only the copy printed, but the adverts they accept and run. The newspaper or magazine editor is legally liable for advertising as much as they are for the articles they commission. Those liabilities and that transparency just did not exist for a lot of online publications, and it could be difficult to see who was behind it.
The challenge with the Online Safety Act was to recognise that the platforms were acting as distributors and promoters of the content—even for a lot of the content that is spam-related or comes from misinformation networks and hostile foreign states. If companies like Facebook are actively promoting that content and highlighting its existence to its users, they should have a liability for it. Newspapers and magazines already had those liabilities because it was clear who was publishing them. In the Online Safety Act, to qualify for the media exemption, it has to be clear who they are, where they are based and who the editor is, and therefore the transparency, liability and risks exist already. They did not in the online world, where many of the publishers were hidden and used that anonymity to spread lies and disinformation.
With that, the onerous costs that lawfare brings to newspapers, and the hollowing out of their business model by the ad platforms that distribute their content for nothing, there is an urgent need to have some sort of compensation mechanism for news organisations, so that local newspapers, national newspapers and magazines get fair compensation for the free distribution of their content across the web. Those are the challenges we face now, and those were things that were never envisaged at the time of Leveson.
As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North has said many times in the debate, things move pretty fast between media Bills. This is another example of how things have moved fast again. This amendment to the law and removing section 40 from the statute books reflects the need for us to change the law to reflect the media world that exists today.
Stephanie Peacock
When Leveson produced his report over 10 years ago, he attempted to strike a careful balance between two important competing objectives: enforcing press standards and protecting the free press. As such, although the inquiry paved the way for the existence of an approved press regulator, it was decided that membership in such a regulator would be voluntary rather than mandatory for news publishers, with incentives put in place to encourage active take-up of membership. One of the major incentives to encourage membership was introduced in the form of section 40. Where papers had not signed up to an approved regulator, they would be vulnerable to paying their legal opponents’ costs where the judge considered it reasonable to do so, even if they were to win the wider case. If they were signed up to a recognised regulator, however, they would be protected from that.
Despite being introduced in the Crime and Courts Act 2013, section 40 has never been commenced and would be repealed by clause 50. We appreciate that section 40 is not a particularly well-drafted piece of legislation. Representatives from and of the press, including the NMA, have long argued that it is morally wrong to attempt to persuade them to sign up to external regulation on the basis that they would have to pay the legal fees of both sides, even when they had won the case. They say if the section was commenced, it would prove financially ruinous to them as on principle they would never sign up to such a regulator.
With over a decade passed, the media landscape has changed significantly since the Leveson report was published, as we have discussed. Almost every major press news outlet has introduced some form of regulation, whether individually or through the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which was not anticipated when the law was drafted. Publishers face significant new challenges that threaten the ability of the industry to carry out its vital work, from inflation and falls in advertising revenue to the rise of social media and the ability to share disinformation more easily online.
Amendment 41, tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, acknowledges what we will do when section 40 is repealed. It remains important that we have a press that is accountable for its reporting and meets the highest ethical and journalistic standards, but given the poor drafting of section 40 and the fundamental imbalance of costs, I believe that those questions are best answered outside the matter of repeal itself. On that basis, I will not stand in the way of this Bill as a result of the Government’s decision to repeal section 40.
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe, and for Aylesbury, set out some of the background to this issue in two extremely well argued speeches. This is an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and I have been living with for over 10 years.
The Leveson inquiry came out of what was undoubtedly a serious abuse by the press, which resulted in criminal prosecutions and some convictions, and a general acceptance that the existing system of press regulation by the Press Complaints Commission had failed. However, the royal charter and section 40 were constructs of the then Liberal-Conservative Government; they were an attempt to find another way of dealing with the issue that would be acceptable to the press but did not represent state regulation. A royal charter was created, and the Press Recognition Panel was created, which would authorise an independent regulator and confer on it the advantages that section 40 gave.
The understanding was that the vast majority of the press would sign up to the independent regulator, and that perhaps one or two of the more recalcitrant, hard-line—probably red-top—tabloids might stand out and would need persuasion, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said when speaking to her amendment. Section 40 was about persuading those one or two remaining outliers to join the system. I must say that I still feel slightly ashamed, because I was persuaded to support the establishment of section 40 after a long discussion with the then Prime Minister.
What none of us, or at least hardly anybody, anticipated was that there would be unanimity across the whole of the media—across all the national newspapers, including those that were certainly not sympathetic to the Government, nor had committed any particular sins of the kind being looked at by Leveson. The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Independent—none of them was prepared to go along with that. It was not just the national newspapers that did not join, but all the local and regional papers; the big groups such as Newsquest, Reach and Johnston Press did not join.
The number of publications that chose to sign up to the regulator, which was created in order to qualify for recognition by the panel, was and is pretty small as a proportion of the industry. I think that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said that there were 200 publications now signed up. Most of them are niche and very small. There is nothing wrong with them; they are doing a good job, and it was their choice to join, but I am afraid that the system has failed to persuade the vast majority of publications to go along with it.
The opposition of the vast majority of publications meant that the system had failed to deliver what was intended. It was my choice, when I was Secretary of State, not to implement section 40. We announced that the Government would not bring in the order required for the powers in section 40 to come into effect. Ever since then, it has been sitting on the statute book unused, and in its place we have a new system of self-regulation.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North kept talking about the need for independent regulation. Some may have criticisms of IPSO, but IPSO is an independent regulator. It is a self-regulator, and it is outside the statutory framework. There will be decisions taken by IPSO that I do not agree with, as there were by the Press Complaints Commission, and one will never be entirely satisfied, but as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury pointed out, IPSO has been considered quite carefully by an independent assessor, and was found to be independent and delivering the kind of principles in the editors’ code that it was set up to enforce.
Stephanie Peacock
It is curious that the Minister is critiquing the Opposition’s position. The Government might be in trouble on the vote in the main Chamber today, but we are not yet in government. I think I outlined quite clearly in my speech that we do not oppose the repeal of section 40, and we appreciate that it has not worked. I also acknowledge that the media landscape has significantly changed, and any future consideration of the challenges of the press should take into account advertising, misinformation and the real challenges for local news. As much as the Minister tempts me to go into more detail, I remind him that he is still in government.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am not sure that has cast any greater light on the Opposition’s position, but it was helpful to hear more from the hon. Lady about her position. At least we know where the SNP stands; the hon. Member for Aberdeen North made it absolutely plain that the SNP is happy to support our removing this pressure on newspapers to join a state-approved or recognised regulator, but only if we put in its place another mechanism that will put equal pressure on them, and that might prove more successful, as she said, in persuading them to join up to the recognised regulator. She and her party may accept the criticism of the existing position, but at least we understand that she still wants Government pressure on newspapers to join a state-recognised regulator. That is the principle we cannot support. I am afraid that in my view her amendment is no better than the existing system. It removes one point of leverage on the press, only to replace it with a yet unspecified alternative.
I do not think it is right that Government should be involved in regulation of the press; I think it is very dangerous. Even the rather convoluted and complicated mechanism of the royal charter still represents state involvement. That flies in the face of belief in the importance to democracy of the freedom of the press, which we on the Government side regard as paramount. I am therefore absolutely committed to supporting clause 50 and the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.
Kirsty Blackman
I will take this opportunity to apologise, as I might have said something wrong. I might not have, but I will apologise in case I did. It might not have been a legacy press regulator that made the Irn Bru comment; it might have been the Standards Commission for Scotland. Unfortunately, it was so long ago that I cannot find online who said it. My apologies if I did get it wrong. I thought I would try to make that clear as mud for the Committee.
Turning to the Minister’s points on regulation, I completely understand his discomfort with section 40. I feel that we are in ideologically different positions. It would be slightly better if the Prime Minister had less of a hand in appointing senior figures at the BBC. We do not want to see things like that happen. If the Government want the press to be entirely Government-regulation free, that is the key point of the BBC charter that I would look to change.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am very interested in that, because it has long been established that while the board of the BBC consists of some individuals who are independently appointed, the chair is a Government appointment and, of course, the BBC board member for Scotland is appointed with the approval of the Scottish Government. All the Administrations in the UK are involved in appointments to the board. The BBC is a state-owned and state-funded broadcaster, and therefore is in a completely different position from a free press.
Kirsty Blackman
I was trying to highlight the inconsistencies in the Minister’s position. He is now saying that the BBC is a different case and therefore needs to be regulated differently. That is fine, but I had not received that clarity from what he said before; he pretty much said he was uncomfortable with some things to do with the BBC charter because of the level of Government involvement. Now I understand that he rationalises that on the basis that the BBC is a different case because of its state funding. It is helpful to have that clarity.
A number of different words are being used in relation to the regulator. We have heard “independent regulator”, “state regulator” and “self-regulator”. It would be helpful to go back to the Leveson recommendations, which I understand were for an independent regulator—that is the way it was phrased. If the Minister and other Government Members are making the case that Impress is not an independent regulator but a state regulator, state-approved regulator or state-sanctioned regulator—all phrases that have been used here—then I am not sure that they can make the case that IPSO is an independent regulator, as well as saying it is a self-regulator. I am happy enough for them to suggest that IPSO is a self-regulator. That is fine, but I do not think it can claim the title of independent regulator. If the Government also believe that Impress cannot claim the title of independent regulator, I think there is a clear disparity in that position. The Government should be happy enough to say, “Neither of these are independent regulators, but we are happy with the self-regulation mechanism currently in place, and we are happy to continue with the self-regulation system.” If that is the Government position, that is absolutely fine, but painting Impress as a state regulator or painting IPSO as an as an independent regulator is wrong: IPSO is a self-regulator, and Impress is an independent regulator.
I understand the Minister’s concerns, but I do not necessarily agree with him. He summed up our position really well. We are concerned about the lack of recourse for the public, and about the current regulation system. We do not feel that it is strong enough. I understand the Minister’s position on media freedom, and his feeling that the Government should not intervene to set up even an independent regulator that would require newspapers to sign up to regulation.
I absolutely agree that things are a bit better than they were pre-Leveson. Things may tip over again. Should an issue like the phone hacking scandal emerge, or should members of the public be harassed or struggling as a result of newspaper attention, another inquiry should be set up to determine what an independent regulator should look like. A recommendation for an independent regulator is not enough; there must be clarity on how that should be set up, and that should take into account what has happened on section 40. If a properly constituted inquiry requires that an independent regulator be set up, that must be done with an awareness of the fact that Impress was not able to get national newspapers to sign up.
I appreciate that we have had a debate on amendment 41. I appreciate all the points of views from Members. It is important to discuss the issue, whether or not the repeal was in the manifesto of the Minister’s party. I will not push amendment 41 to a vote in this sitting, but I may do so on Report.
Sir John Whittingdale
I want to be clear: I am not criticising Impress. Impress is an independent regulator. It has a code of conduct that its members subscribe to. It adjudicates and carries out the function of a regulator, just as IPSO does. The only difference is that IPSO decided not to apply for recognition from the Press Recognition Panel, whereas Impress did apply and achieved that recognition. It is the principle that divides the two, not in any way their performance as regulators.
It is arguable—this has not been put to the test—that IPSO might qualify for recognition, if it chose to apply. In many ways, it is already compliant with the conditions. However, it decided that it did not wish to achieve recognition, so it remains outside the system. To be honest, that is why the system has failed: because the regulator that the vast majority of newspapers belong to decided that it simply could not apply, even though there was a good chance it might have been recognised. The carrot and stick in section 40 have clearly failed to provide the persuasion that the hon. Lady was looking for. I just want to be clear that I am not in any way suggesting that Impress is not a perfectly proper and independent regulator; it is the system that has failed.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 41.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51
Amendments of broadcasting legislation: UK’s withdrawal from EU
Sir John Whittingdale
The clause introduces schedule 12, which sets out minor and technical amendments to existing broadcasting legislation in relation to retained EU law. These are straightforward fixes to ensure that legislation does not become inoperable following the UK’s exit from the EU.
Part 1 of this schedule removes references to the audiovisual media services directive from the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the Broadcasting Act 1996. Part 2 of schedule 12 amends part 4A of the Communications Act 2003 to remove references to the European Commission, obligations under the audiovisual media services directive, and to other European legislation.
Stephanie Peacock
It is important that our legislation addresses issues of retained EU law. As such, I have no particular issues with the contents of the clause or with schedule 12.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
New Clause 1
Delivery of public service content on relevant television services
“After section 264A of the Communications Act 2003, insert—
“264B Delivery of public service content on relevant television services
(1) Ofcom must monitor the extent to which the public service remit for television in the United Kingdom is met in respect of relevant television services.
(2) If Ofcom considers that the public service remit for television in the United Kingdom is not being met in respect of such services, it may set whatever programming quotas it considers necessary to ensure that the remit is met.
(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘relevant television services’ means—
(a) the television broadcasting services provided by the BBC;
(b) the television programme services that are public services of the Welsh Authority (within the meaning of section 207);
(c) every Channel 3 service;
(d) Channel 4;
(e) Channel 5.””—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This new clause would give Ofcom powers to measure the delivery of public service content on the linear services of the public service broadcasters, and set quotas if it considered the current level to be unsatisfactory.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am very pleased to speak to this new clause. As the shadow Secretary of State outlined in her speech on Second Reading, the Bill is welcome but misses the opportunity to consider how we can secure the future of UK public service media for school-age children. The issue was brought to my attention by the Children’s Media Foundation, which I have been pleased to meet more than once. It has done a huge amount of work on understanding patterns of media consumption by children, and how those patterns might impact their chances of viewing public service media. I place on record an explicit thank you to the foundation for that work, and I hope that it will be picked up further as a result of the new clause.
If we all agree that public service content is important for adults, as I believe we have done time and again throughout the Bill’s passage, I think we can agree that it is equally, if not more important for children. Certainly, the kind of high-quality public service content that our public service broadcasters can provide for children has powerful potential and has, for the last 75 years, been the envy of the world. It can promote wellbeing, give children an understanding of where they live, teach them British values of tolerance, provide entertaining forms of education that supplement their learning at school, and show a diverse range of role models. Ultimately, public service media can encourage children to value culture and crave knowledge—valuable characteristics for citizens to have when they come of age.
However, due to several connecting factors, this sort of content is under threat. As technology has rapidly evolved, the children’s content landscape has fundamentally changed forever. Children as young as toddlers have access to new devices and platforms. They can navigate apps on tablets and choose content that they would like to watch. That gives them access not only to video on demand services such as Netflix and Disney+, but to platforms such as YouTube and TikTok. The popularity of these forms of content are such that Ofcom estimates that less than half of 3 to 17-year-olds now watch live television. Similarly, there are potentially 9 million school-age viewers, but the top-rated programme on CBBC in any one week may have as few as 50,000 viewers, and similar numbers will request that programme on iPlayer. That number is a fraction of what we would hope it to be, given the importance of children’s public service content, which has been outlined.
As well as declining viewership, there has arguably been a decline in the amount of children’s content produced that could genuinely be considered to be public service. When there are budget constraints, UK-focused dramas or documentaries that reflect the unique lives and concerns of British children are often the first to go. The volume of first-run, UK-originated children’s programming on PSB channels dropped to its lowest level in 2022; it was down to 518 hours, compared to 640 hours in 2019. Furthermore, producers can save money by localising animated and puppet shows; what might initially appear to be a British programme with wider societal value may in fact be an international production, with personalised snippets to attract a bigger pool of funders.
It is not that the industry is unaware of the problems surrounding children’s public service content. Certainly in 2022, when the Government brought the young audiences content fund to an end, more than 750 creatives and executives from the UK children’s content industry signed an open letter, and campaigned to extend the fund for another three years. The likes of Channel 5 and Paramount are also working hard to keep up their Milkshake! offering. They are increasing their spend on children’s programming year on year, just to keep provision at the same level, but where there is a need to meet commercial demands, valuable children’s content will inevitably continue to suffer.
There is almost nothing in the Bill to show that this combination of concerning trends—declining viewership alongside declining content quality—has been identified, and there are no meaningful measures to stop the problem escalating. Children’s content is included in the new simplified remit in the very first clause, but that does little to increase accountability or individual channels’ contribution to creating children’s public service content, or to recognise changing trends in how children consume their media.
It is for all those reasons that the Children’s Media Foundation argued that we must urgently accept that children’s public service media are under threat and rethink how we can best protect them as part of the passage of the Bill. As a result, I propose that the Government conduct a review to better understand how we can secure children’s content long into the future.
Such a review would be an opportunity to ask bigger questions than the Bill currently allows for. For example, do we need to go to where the children are and broaden our concept of public service media for children, encouraging and promoting such content on the likes of Netflix, YouTube and TikTok? Do we need to learn the lessons from the ambition of the Online Safety Act 2023 and consider how algorithms serve content to young people, perhaps adjusting them to ensure that they promote diversity of thought rather than simply more of the same? Should we set targets for PSBs to hit a number of hours consumed rather than a number of hours produced when it comes to public service media for children?
I do not claim to have the answers to all these sorts of questions, but I do believe that they need to be explored. The UK must address the reality of the matter and accept that a new approach will be needed if we are to ensure that valuable content reaches the eyes and ears of young people across the country. I hope that is something that the Minister can acknowledge and I look forward to hearing his response.
Kirsty Blackman
Specifically on this issue, I agree with the points made by the shadow Minister. I think that asking for a report into this issue is the most sensible way forward, rather than saying that we have got all the answers. Looking at this issue in the whole would be very important.
When my children were younger, we relied a lot on CBeebies; the kids spent a lot of time watching CBeebies rather than anything else. Now that they are a bit bigger, they have forayed into the world of YouTube; when we are considering content on these platforms, at least with CBeebies parents know for certain that there will be no swearing and nothing inappropriate on that channel. Not everything on it is necessarily educational, but it is all funny or good, whereas on YouTube there is an absolute load of nonsense at times, and there are a number of shows on Netflix or Disney+ about which I have had to say to my daughter, “No, you can’t watch that. It’s just nonsense.”
There is value in ensuring that children have access, and easy access, to appropriate content and in encouraging parents to ensure that their children are—well, having gone through the Online Safety Bill, I know that we need to ensure that parents are aware of what their children are consuming on the internet and aware of what they are watching, and that they are taking decisions to manage that content and to ensure that children have good access to it. If the public service broadcasters’ shows for children are more easily accessible, parents will have fewer issues in ensuring that those are the shows that their children see.
Lastly, I will give a wee plug for “Newsround”, which a significant number of schools show in school. It is incredibly important and a really key way in which children are able to access news content in an age-appropriate way that explains the background and the information that they are being provided with. Therefore, I agree entirely with the shadow Minister that it would be sensible to have a report on this issue, and that a watching brief definitely needs to be kept on it.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Just to add to those points and those made by the shadow Minister, I have often relied on the third parent that is CBeebies, as I imagine many other Members and many of our constituents have as well. I want to talk about the quality of such television and about its educational impact on children, ranging from young children to teenagers.
As has been alluded to, the quality of the BBC’s programmes, particularly on CBeebies, is just a trusted fact. I know as a parent that I could quite happily leave my three-year-old in front of CBeebies. She does not love Peter Rabbit, but I know that it is a safe and secure watch for her. I know that there will be no inappropriate advertising or any inappropriate life lessons or swearing, which I cannot guarantee on other services or channels. There are brilliant CBeebies programmes and characters, such as Mr Tumble, “Bluey”, “Newsround”, which has already been mentioned, and “Dog Squad”, which is a new firm favourite.
As the shadow Minister said, most children now know their way around an iPad, a tablet, a computer or a phone like the back of their hand, and they access all this content in a way that we could not when we were younger, including through Netflix or YouTube. That is a particular concern, because the adverts on YouTube and other online streaming platforms are not always age appropriate. Particularly during the cost of living crisis and in the run-up to Christmas, that is another burden for parents to deal with. It is a huge annoyance that there is this reliance on advertising, and sometimes product placement, which is not always healthy for children, in movies and TV shows.
On the educational impact, I have concerns about how young children watch these programmes. There will need to be access to repeated viewings for the educational impact to be fully felt when it comes to things such as GCSE “Bitesize” or learning letters. One episode of “Yakka Dee!” or “Sesame Street” will not teach my child the entire alphabet. With that in mind, it is important that we have a review of the impact on young people to protect the quality and standards of children’s television.
Sir John Whittingdale
I suspect that the entire Committee agrees that it is important that children have access to public service broadcast content. The educational value of children’s television is hugely important, and it is indispensable for happy parenthood. It is for that reason that proposed new subsection 264(5)(c) of the Communications Act 2003 puts children’s television front and centre of the public service broadcasting regime. That will ensure that the public service remit can be fulfilled only by the public service broadcasters collectively producing a wide range of children’s content, including original content that reflects the lives and concerns of children and young people in the UK, and helps them to understand the world around them. The inclusion of children’s content as part of the remit will ensure that the needs of children feature prominently in Ofcom’s regular reporting. That will also complement its strengthened powers in respect of under-served content areas.
Although the provision of public service children’s programming is key, children—and especially older children—do of course watch other kinds of public service content as well, whether with their parents or on their own. As the hon. Member for Luton North set out, children access public service content via a wide range of devices. The Government agree that internet access and streaming services have fundamentally changed how audiences access TV, and that certainly applies to younger audiences, perhaps even more so than for any other group. On online advertising, I have recently been chairing a separate initiative—the online advertising taskforce—whose purpose is to ensure that online advertising does not advertise illegal products, and that children do not see advertising of inappropriate products.
The Bill tries to create flexibility by allowing our PSBs to deliver their remits across a wider range of services, including in new on-demand and short formats. We have made it clear that our PSBs must serve all audiences, and that extends not just to the content they make, but to how they choose to distribute it. These changes will ensure that our public service remit stays relevant and continues to reflect how audiences, including children and young people, are accessing PSB content.
We have to remember that PSB content has to be funded. All speakers paid tribute to the BBC’s output in this area, including CBBC and CBeebies, which are a core part of its output. Of course, the BBC receives public funding and is required under the charter to deliver content of that kind. It is more challenging for commercial television, as those broadcasters are dependent on advertising funding. I merely observe that the more we impose restrictions on what can be advertised to children, the more there is a detrimental impact on the amount of revenue gain by commercial broadcasters, which will influence their decisions about how much they invest in children’s programming.
That was one of the reasons why we previously established the young audiences content fund, which was designed to address the fact that almost all the children’s content was being produced by the BBC. The fund was there to support the commissioning of children’s content on other channels, and it proved very successful. It was a three-year pilot, but the Government continue to remain committed to the principle. I hope that, one day, it might be possible to resurrect something of that kind.
Stephanie Peacock
If it was a successful pilot, why did the Government not continue it?
Sir John Whittingdale
It was a successful pilot funded by the BBC, because it was licence-fee funded. Personally, I would have liked it to continue, but the BBC obviously was under financial pressure and put up a strong case that it could not continue to fund it. The principle that it was seeking to address remains an important one, and the Government have tried to provide alternative support, through things such as tax relief, for the production of children’s content. I share the hon. Lady’s sadness that it was brought to an end after three years, but it was always intended to be a pilot, and viewers will still be able to see content produced by the fund for some years to come.
Kirsty Blackman
On a point of order, Mr Vickers. I have to leave for a very important meeting, and I know that a number of new clauses in my name are coming up. I want to advise the Chair that I have to leave and am happy for those new clauses not to be pushed to a vote in Committee. Hopefully, making this point of order will mean that the sitting can end slightly earlier.
Sir John Whittingdale
I hope that the sitting can end very soon in any case; I think we have pretty much concluded the debate, and the remaining clauses are relatively technical.
I think the best people to conduct the review that the hon. Member for Barnsley East has called for are Ofcom. Ofcom has given a commitment in its planning work to take an in-depth look at how the market is best serving the interests of children, which I think will give us the insight that she wants. For that reason, I do not think her new clause is necessary.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate the Minister’s point about it being harder for commercial stations than it perhaps is for the BBC—of course, I made a point of praising Channel 5 and Paramount in my comments. I asked a number of quite broad questions about children’s television. I hope that Ofcom will consider them, but I am not sure that the Bill mandates it to do that. For those reasons, I would like to push the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Sir John Whittingdale
I do not intend to detain the Committee at great length. Clause 52 gives the Secretary of State a regulation-making power to make amendments to other existing legislation, which is needed as a result of changes contained in the Bill. If the proposed changes are to other primary legislation, the regulations will be subject to debate in both Houses. If the proposed changes are to secondary legislation, the regulations will be subject to the negative procedure.
Clause 53 authorises expenditure from the Bill. It covers the possibility that increased spending by Ofcom might require the payment of grants to incur or meet liabilities in respect of capital and revenue expenditure, or the possibility that the Secretary of State makes a grant to S4C.
Clause 54 sets out the Bill’s territorial extent. The Bill will extend and apply to the United Kingdom, except for the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which will extend and apply to England and Wales.
Clause 55 provides for the commencement of the provisions in the Bill. The majority of the provisions will be brought into force by regulations made by the Secretary of State. The provisions that come into force on the day on which this Bill is passed will be the regulation-making powers in relation to the prominence of television selection services and the general provisions in the Bill, such as the clauses dealing with the power to make consequential provisions, financial provision, extent, commencement, and the title of the Bill. Clause 50, which repeals section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, will come into force two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The rest of the Bill will come into force when the Secretary of State decides.
Finally, clause 56 establishes the short title of this legislation, which, when enacted, will be the Media Act 2024. I commend clauses 52 to 56 to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
I am pleased to have reached the final stages of our Committee. I have no issue with the clauses in this group. Perhaps I could seek your guidance, Mr Vickers, on whether it would be appropriate to say a few words in conclusion, or perhaps on a point of order.
The Chair
There will be an opportunity later.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 53 to 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Stephanie Peacock
I would like to make some concluding remarks. Overall, the Media Bill is a piece of legislation that we very much look forward to seeing on the statute book as soon as possible, and I hope there is no further delay in its passage. There are, of course, some areas where I would have liked further progress, but I am really pleased to have welcomed through many of the measures, from the prominence regime to the establishment of the first video-on-demand code and rights.
I conclude by putting some thank yous on the record. I thank the Chairs, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South, the Clerks of the Committee and all members of the Committee. It is particularly worth noting the work done before the Bill was introduced, by the CMS Committee and all the stakeholders, and in particular by Anna Clingan from my office, who has worked incredibly hard on all the speeches. I look forward to continuing the process of scrutiny on the Floor of the House, probably after Christmas.
Sir John Whittingdale
I join the hon. Lady in expressing my thanks. This is a very important Bill that has been in the making for a long time. There has been a lot of support for its provisions from right across the media sector. The fact that the Committee has spent just three days debating it in no way suggests that it is not an essential and important piece of legislation; instead, I think it shows that there is remarkable agreement across the Committee. While we may differ on specific detail in general—even on the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act—it appears that there is pretty much cross-party agreement. I hope that that will continue when the Bill moves up to the other place.
I wish to thank all the members of the Committee for their contributions and support. I thank you, Mr Vickers, and the hon. Member for Bradford South for chairing so effectively. I thank the Clerks for doing an excellent job in preparing the amendments and keeping the whole thing on schedule. I also thank my officials in the Department, who have been working on this Bill for quite a long time. It is a great tribute to them that we have managed to get it through this part of its passage through Parliament so smoothly.
With that, I thank the Committee once again, and wish everyone a happy Christmas.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Westminster Hall
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Auditory Verbal Therapy
(4 months, 4 weeks 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
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the provision of auditory verbal therapy.
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairwomanship, Dame Maria. There are about 50,000 deaf children in the UK, with over 7,000 under the age of five. They face the prospect of lower academic achievement and lower employment and are at a high risk of poor mental health, bullying and social exclusion. But it does not have to be this way: when deaf children and their families have access to early, effective support, opportunities are transformed.
Expanding opportunities for children with special educational needs, including deaf children, so that they can reach their full potential is really important to them, their families and us as legislators. Early support should be available to all deaf children, whether their parents choose to communicate with spoken language, sign language or both.
Auditory verbal therapy is an early-intervention strategy rather than a communication approach in itself. It is a family-centred coaching programme that equips parents and care-givers with the tools to support the development of their child’s listening and speaking. The robust, evidence-based specialist therapy supports deaf children to process the sound they get from their hearing technology, such as cochlear implants and hearing aids, and to develop language so that they can learn to talk like their hearing friends.
Deaf children in the UK currently face a lifetime of disadvantage without access to early and effective support. Less than 10% of deaf children who could benefit from auditory verbal therapy can currently access it. Auditory verbal therapy is delivered by speech and language therapists, audiologists and teachers of the deaf who have undertaken around three years of additional training and have qualified to become internationally accredited listening and spoken language specialists. It is usually delivered in a child’s first three and a half years, when the brain’s connections for processing sound are developing fastest. The National Deaf Children’s Society notes:
“Professionals who promote AVT believe that by working intensively with children in their early years they will require much less support as they get older.”
Specifically, it notes:
“Its aim is to ensure that deaf children develop age-appropriate language by the time they start school.”
Although the UK has one of the best newborn hearing screening programmes in the world and state-of-the-art hearing technology is available to babies and young people on the NHS, deaf children are not reaching their full potential, and we are not maximising the investment being made in screening and technology.
At present, more than 92% of deaf children under the age of five in the UK are unable to access an auditory verbal programme, because there is little to no provision through publicly funded services and there are only 30 auditory verbal therapists in the UK. There are just over 460 deaf children living in East Sussex. There are no auditory verbal therapists in Hastings and Rye or in East Sussex. Other developed countries, such as Australia, New Zealand and Denmark, already provide state funding for auditory verbal therapy, and the UK should strive to match that investment.
About 80% of children who attend an auditory verbal programme for at least two years achieve the same level of spoken language as their hearing peers, rising to 97% of children without additional needs. Most of these children attend mainstream schools and attain educational outcomes on a par with those of hearing children. Auditory verbal therapy is part of the Early Intervention Foundation guidebook.
To increase access to specialist support, we need to train more specialist practitioners in the auditory verbal approach. For an investment of just over £2 million a year over the next decade, we can transform the landscape of auditory verbal provision. Economic analysis has shown that training a small proportion of the current public sector workforce in order to embed 300 auditory verbal therapists across the UK can deliver £150 million of economic benefit, rising to £11.7 billion in the next 50 years, through improved quality of life, employment prospects, the lower cost of schooling, and avoided injuries. Furthermore, analysis from the charity Auditory Verbal UK, based on His Majesty’s Treasury models, shows that within 50 years the NHS would save £30.5 million through the avoidance of injury alone.
I have met amazing deaf children and young people who are brimming with confidence and self-esteem, and we have some sitting here with us today. Quite by chance, I have Noli here with me, who is doing a day’s work experience with me. I met her at the auditory verbal therapy event in Parliament. She is studying at Durham University and has huge confidence and self-esteem. Many young deaf people far exceed the expectations associated with their disability—although, to them, being deaf is not a disability, because of the early intervention they have received. Every deaf child deserves that.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Maria. I will give the view from Scotland, which is probably what most people in the room expect me to do, because the NHS in Scotland is different. However, before I start, I thank the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for securing this important debate, and the charity AV UK for its briefing.
The Scottish Government want to make Scotland the best place to grow up for deaf children and those who have hearing loss, based on their “Getting it right for every child”—GIRFEC—approach. The Scottish Government fund the Scottish Sensory Centre and CALL Scotland to provide advice and training to school staff on support, including the use of assistive technology, for children and young people with specific communication and sensory needs. In fact, there is a unit attached to a primary school in my constituency.
As we know, auditory verbal therapy supports deaf children to learn how to make sense of the sound they receive through their hearing technology, such as hearing aids or cochlear implants, so that they can learn to talk like their hearing friends and family. It is an intensive programme of therapy that focuses on the development of active listening, or auditory, skills and speaking, or verbal, skills. This highly specialist early-intervention family-centred coaching programme equips parents and care-givers with the tools needed to support the development of a deaf child’s spoken language.
The charity Auditory Verbal UK has done good work in Shetland. There are only two AV specialists in Scotland, and I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye talked about the dearth of specialists across the UK and about how little it would cost to improve the numbers and the training in particular specialisms. One would hope that Scotland would get the Barnett consequentials for that.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On the point about the lack of individuals who are skilled up to deal with this issue, which the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) also made, does the hon. Lady agree that today’s debate might play a small part in ensuring that various Departments, wherever they are in the UK, will skill up the necessary personnel so that we do not face this problem in five or 10 years’ time?
Marion Fellows
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, because the issue is really important. We are discovering new ways of helping deaf children. We need not just to have the technology but to train the people to help deaf children.
In general, concerns have been raised that young children’s language development has been affected by the public health measures implemented to prevent and control the spread of covid-19. Again, we have a backlog of things that need to be done.
Developing channels for better communication is vital for a child or young person’s development and wellbeing. Speech and language therapy generally supports children and young people with communication needs, as those needs may interfere with everyday life. Treatment approaches aim to enable children, young people and their carers to maximise their skills. In Scotland, NHS health boards and local authorities are responsible for the provision of, and funding for, services for deaf children. That includes the provision of specific therapeutic approaches.
The Scottish Government are, as ever, committed to improving the services, support and care available to people with any kind of sensory deprivation. Their long-term strategy, See Hear, commits to ensuring that children, young people and adults have the same access as everyone else to opportunities and public services, including health, social care, education and leisure.
In 2019, the first UK-wide allied health professions public health strategic framework, which went from 2019 to 2024, was published by all four nations. It was intended to help AHPs and partners further develop their role in public health. As the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye said, we need money to make things better, and we need more investment by all Governments, including the UK Government, to make this approach work.
In the Scottish Government’s Scottish allied health professions public health strategic framework implementation plan for 2022 to 2027, several examples show AHPs in action and provide examples of good practice in Scotland. One case study highlights the speech and language therapy at NHS Forth Valley as
“a transformational approach for children and young people”.
The Scottish Government’s shared vision is that children and young people in Forth Valley will demonstrate improved outcomes through access to a speech and language therapy service
“that is based on relationships”—
again, we are talking about people—and that
“is accessible, person centred, outcome focused, integrated and delivers quality universal, targeted and individualised support.”
Again, it is important that we up the number of specialists so that those with cochlear implants, for example, learn to hear and speak very early on.
There is also the Scottish Sensory Centre, which is for
“everyone who is involved in the education of deaf children, deafblind children and visually impaired children and young people, the young people themselves”
and importantly, their families. Its mission is
“to foster educational, research and development activities relating to children and young people with a sensory impairment in Scotland.”
It also aims to support the Scottish Government
“by embracing the values and principles of ‘Getting it Right for Every Child’ and by promoting a positive ethos that reflects the components of a Curriculum for Excellence.”
That is a different way of giving cross-subject education to young people, and it works extremely well in primary schools in Scotland.
CALL Scotland is a support service to help children and young people across Scotland
“to overcome disability and barriers to learning”,
and it is funded primarily by the Scottish Government. CALL Scotland’s service includes pupil assessment support, professional learning, specialist information and expert advice, assistive technology loans and technical support, and strategic leadership. It is intended for managers, teachers and everyone who works with, in this case, deaf children.
“Getting it right for every child” is the national approach in Scotland, and it is about supporting all children. However, it would be especially useful if we could encourage more auditory and verbal specialists to come to Scotland and promote the good work that society already does there.
It is important that there is additional support not only within but outwith education, so that there is a whole-child approach and not just action in schools. Education authorities can speak to other agencies, and they work closely with NHS boards and social work services in Scotland to help deaf children. That multi-agency support is an excellent model.
I fully support the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye in her appeal, and I hope that the debate focuses minds in Governments across the UK on this problem.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Thank you for stepping into the breach this morning, Dame Maria. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for securing the important debate, and I pay tribute to AV UK for its work on supporting deaf children, children with hearing loss, and some of the families here today, who have had such a positive experience of auditory verbal therapy.
As the hon. Member said, auditory verbal therapy is an evidence-based approach, and I am grateful to her for setting out the evidence base for its effectiveness. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for setting out some of the detail of how the system for supporting deaf children and children with hearing loss works in Scotland.
There are an estimated 50,000 deaf children in the UK, with around 7,200 under the age of five. Given the right support and intervention, many deaf children can participate fully and thrive in mainstream schools, whether they choose to use spoken language, sign language or both. There is a particular responsibility to get our special educational needs and disabilities system of support right, especially by designing interventions to support children who need not suffer any other disadvantage in the education system if the support they need is provided appropriately from the start.
Unfortunately, as today’s debate has shown, that is not the case in many parts of the country. Research by the Education Policy Institute found a staggering attainment gap between deaf children and their peers. That gap already equates to 8.8 months of learning by key stage 1, and it grows throughout school to 17.5 months at the age of 16—almost a year and half of education. That translates into an average grade for GCSE English and maths that is 1.3 grades below the average grade for deaf children’s peers. Deaf children are also more likely to experience poor mental health, bullying and social exclusion, all posing further barriers to their education and personal development. Alongside each child are the parents and carers who all too often have to fight constantly for the support their child needs.
Although the number of deaf children in education has risen by more than 10,000 since 2011, the number of qualified teachers of the deaf in employment has fallen by 19%, according to the Consortium for Research into Deaf Education. Specialist teachers for the deaf and specialist teaching assistants perform vital work to help their students access education. I witnessed that on a recent visit to Jubilee Primary School in Lambeth, just outside my constituency, which benefits from a full-time teacher of the deaf. However, teachers of the deaf are facing ever-growing case loads, reducing the time they can spend with each individual child.
Labour wants to see a properly inclusive system that meets the needs of all children and young people, including deaf children and children with hearing loss. We have been clear that we would put inclusion at the heart of our education system, with a focus on providing the interventions that are needed earlier and on ensuring that school staff have the specialist skills they need to meet every child’s needs. It is also vital that families get the support they need as early as possible, before their children start school, to help them communicate with their children and to develop their children’s language and communication skills.
Help that is provided early in a child’s life can be transformative, avoiding the need for much greater support later, and helping more children to thrive in mainstream education. Across the country, guidance and support for parents varies greatly between local authorities. We know that deaf children in more disadvantaged areas experience a greater attainment gap than their peers elsewhere in the country. There is a wealth of low-cost interventions already being delivered in some parts of the country to give parents and families the skills they need to support their child’s development and communicate with them. This needs to happen everywhere. These include courses in British Sign Language offered by the National Deaf Children’s Society, and Auditory Verbal UK’s approach to developing spoken language through listening.
I know there are families and young people in the Gallery today who have really benefited from auditory verbal support. Labour wants to see the right support for every child, and it is important that we learn from evidence and best practice, and understand what is working for families in areas of the country that manage to achieve the very best outcomes. We are looking carefully at this, and we are looking at the wider framework of SEND support from early years throughout education, involving early intervention, especially with communication, speech and language skills. We are also looking at the skills available to professionals working in mainstream education and at how the Ofsted assessment framework for schools can be used to drive improved inclusivity across our system. Within a transformed framework for SEND support, we will look to ensure that evidence-based interventions are available wherever they are needed.
I want to use this opportunity to press the Minister on the wider issue of how the Government plan to improve inclusion in mainstream schools, as set out in the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan. As I have set out, the Opposition share the ambition to improve inclusion in the mainstream, but the Government have not set out a clear plan to achieve it. There is no workforce plan or strategy to ensure that schools have the specialist staff needed, including teachers of the deaf, while much of the plan will not come into effect until 2026, leaving families waiting three years longer before they will see any reform. It will be helpful to know what the Minister is doing now to address the vacancy gap for teachers of the deaf.
The Labour party is clear that in government we would put children first and at the heart of our programme, and break down the barriers that hold far too many back from thriving in education and building strong relationships, including deaf children. We would be working with professionals, children and families to deliver a SEND system that works to support the needs of every child.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I start by congratulating my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on securing the debate on this important topic. I reassure her and all Members today that the Government are committed to improving outcomes and experiences for all children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, including children with hearing loss.
As I am sure colleagues are aware, figures from the National Deaf Children’s Society show that there are more than 50,000 deaf children and young people across the UK. Between one and two babies in every thousand are born with permanent hearing loss in one or both ears, and we know that early and effective support is crucial for these children and their families. My hon. Friend pointed out how important it is that help and support is there as soon as possible. She also pointed out that, without intervention, children with speech and language needs are at higher risk of facing longer-term challenges, including in education. It is vital that we intervene at birth, which is why we are investing in hearing screening for newborns to identify babies who have permanent hearing loss as early as possible, so that we can intervene as quickly as possible.
We know that language is linked to social, emotional and learning outcomes. From birth through to childhood, children and young people with hearing loss might need a range of therapy, such as speech, language and auditory verbal therapies. As we have heard today, however, those children are not always receiving the help they need. It is important that we start by pointing out that the commissioning of many of these services, including the provision of therapies for children with hearing loss, happens at the local level. This now sits with our 42 integrated care boards, which means that the responsibility for meeting the needs of a local community of non-hearing children lies with local NHS commissioners.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has issued guidance on the topic of cochlear implants for children and adults with severe to profound deafness. When it comes to commissioning and providing services for children with hearing loss, we have been crystal clear with those ICBs and NHS trusts that they must take those relevant guidelines into account. As yet, however, there are no NICE guidelines on hearing loss for children in general, and until now NICE had not made any specific recommendations on auditory verbal therapy.
I am pleased that NHS England has met with Auditory Verbal UK this year and discussed the need for more high-level research evidence, for the intervention and for evaluations of impact to be developed. NICE will not make recommendations without that evidence base, and getting that information absolutely must be the priority now, so that decisions and recommendations can be made. It is right that Auditory Verbal UK was invited to join the chief scientific officer’s audiology stakeholder group; I am sure it will have a lasting impact on the decisions being made. I am very happy to work with my hon. Friend and Auditory Verbal UK to ensure that progress is happening.
The Government will continue to prioritise investment into the NHS, and we have seen record levels in cash terms, rising to £165 billion in the coming year. We are using that money to support ICBs to make informed decision about the provision of hearing loss services, so that they can provide consistent high-quality integrated care to children with hearing loss. In 2016, NHS England published “Commissioning Services for People with Hearing Loss: A framework for clinical commissioning groups”, which also supports NHS commissioners to address inequalities in access and outcomes between hearing services.
With input from the National Deaf Children’s Society, NHS England produced a guide for commissioners and providers who support children and young people with hearing loss. That guide provides practical advice on ensuring that children with hearing loss receive the necessary support. More recently in May, the NHS service specification for cochlear implant services for adults and children recognised AVTs as part of multidisciplinary teams’ decision-making processes, enabling them to provide rehabilitation services alongside a range of healthcare professionals providing other services.
I fully recognise my hon. Friend’s point that we are not where we want to be in improving access to therapies for children with hearing loss. The limiting factor, as she pointed out, is the number of therapists working in the NHS—the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), also raised that issue in Scotland. We are increasing the numbers and have seen a 17% increase in speech and language therapists since 2018.
That is also why we are undertaking the biggest nursing, midwifery and allied health professional recruitment drive in decades with our long-term workforce plan, which includes the recruitment of speech and language therapists. AHP training places will increase by 13% to 17,000 in the next five years, with an 8% increase just next year, and by 25% to over 18,800 in the next 10 years. I am very happy to speak to the Minister responsible for the long-term workforce plan to particularly focus on the AVT element of that. Recruiting speech and language therapists is important, but I have clearly heard the point in this debate about the added training required to ensure that more therapists are available across England.
As committed to in the SEND implementation plan, we are exploring options to commission research to understand the health needs of children and young people through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. As I said previously, without NICE recommendations and the evidence base to inform those recommendations, we will not make progress as quickly as we would like. We are therefore working to improve access to speech and language therapy through service innovations.
We are including Early Language and Support for Every Child projects in our £70 million change programme, in partnership with NHS England. That programme is funding innovative workforce models to identify and support children and young people with speech, language and communication needs at an early stage. That will reduce exacerbation of need that might lead to a referral for specialist speech and language therapy or for an education, health and care plan. I welcome the work of Auditory Verbal UK on its plans to upskill health professionals to deliver AVT. Whether that is through speech and language therapists or upskilling other healthcare professionals, I am very keen to hear about its work and to see what more we can do to get those skills in place to help children and young people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye spoke powerfully about the importance of early identification and intervention for children with hearing loss. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), touched on schools in particular. She will know that teachers of deaf children have to hold the mandatory qualification in sensory impairment. There are currently six providers of that, and a seventh will come on stream next year. I am working closely with the Minister for children, and I will absolutely take her points to him to make sure there is a joined-up approach. This issue is not just about health, but about education—it is a cross-Government issue. We are committed to joining up the dots and working together to get children help and support wherever they need it, whether in healthcare or in school.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and I share the same ICB. I recommend that all local MPs lobby their ICBs on the importance of commissioning these services. I recognise that we have to do more nationally to train practitioners who teach AVT, but we need local commissioners to commission those services and upskill their own local workforce. I have heard that message very powerfully and look forward to working with my hon. Friend and all Members across the House to deliver for children with hearing problems in the months ahead.
Sally-Ann Hart
I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for her contribution from the Scottish perspective. She highlighted a whole-child approach both inside and outside education. We need to get it right for all children to help them thrive. Given the right support and intervention, we can do so. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for her positive comments on the need for early intervention for deaf children and their families and for a joined-up approach across Government. That is very helpful.
I thank the Minister for her understanding of the issue and of the need for early intervention. Will she meet with Auditory Verbal UK to help to support the organisation in ensuring that the right evidence is provided to the NHS, so that the NICE guidelines can reflect the need for early intervention at both national and ICB levels? Regarding auditory verbal therapists in the NHS for the long-term workforce plan, it is very clear that we have to think ahead. Getting things in place now is really important.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the provision of auditory verbal therapy.
Middlewick Ranges
(4 months, 4 weeks 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
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I will call Will Quince to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of Middlewick Ranges.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. This is my first debate since rejoining the Back Benches, which I hope demonstrates how serious this issue is to me personally and to my constituents. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for responding; I have a huge amount of time and respect for him, and I know he will take seriously the points I make.
I have been consistently outspoken about the future of Middlewick Ranges throughout my time as the Member of Parliament for Colchester. I have consistently raised the future of the site with ministerial colleagues in writing, orally in the House and in various meetings since the site was designated for disposal. The Minister will be aware that it was announced in April 2017 that the Ministry of Defence had earmarked the Middlewick Ranges site for sale, because it wanted, for operational reasons, to consolidate on one site in Colchester. Despite Colchester being home to a large garrison, I do understand the rationale and I do not challenge the validity of the argument to invest in one range in the area—Fingringhoe. That is arguably more suited, given the security and exclusion zone requirements for live firing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As a former reservist addressing a serving reservist, I am conscious of the importance of having ranges available for reserve forces— the Territorial Army, for instance. Will the removal of this range restrict the ability of reserve forces to train and to gain the experience they need?
Will Quince
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point, and it does concern me. However, I am not overly concerned, having looked into the detail with those at the garrison. The MOD intends to invest significantly in the Fingringhoe ranges site but, to the hon. Gentleman’s point, I gently suggest to the Minister that, given the size of the garrison and the relatively small capital receipt that could theoretically be achieved, based on a developer being willing to take the site on, it would be prudent at the very least to mothball the ranges or to use them as an alternative training area for reservists or regulars, in case they are needed in future.
After the site was earmarked for sale, Colchester Borough Council, now Colchester City Council, designated it for 1,000 homes and in 2022 it was included in Colchester’s local plan. That was rushed through, despite considerable opposition and the compelling scientific and ecological evidence presented. Last month, the site was released for sale on the open market, which is why I called the debate today. I have raised my significant concern in writing with the Secretary of State for Defence. Although the response from the Minister for Defence Procurement was helpful, in that it clarified the Department’s position on the ecology and the size of the parcel of land for sale, it was none the less disappointing.
By way of background, Middlewick farm was first purchased by the Government in 1857, to be used as a training area and rifle range. For centuries, the Wick has been enjoyed and used by residents of Colchester for walking and leisure. It is a vital green lung for suburban Colchester and it is adjacent to the Roman river valley site of special scientific interest. The site was designated as a wildlife site in the 1990s and was redesignated in 2015.
I hope the Minister knows me well enough, as a near constituency neighbour, to know that I am not a nimby. Colchester has been a high-growth urban centre for decades. I completely understand and get the need for housing, and particularly affordable homes and homes for social rent. It is important to note that Colchester City Council consistently and regularly exceeds its annual housing targets. However, the impact of such a large housing development has to be considered. The infrastructure of any area will inevitably be tested, and my constituents are understandably and rightly worried about the impact this development would have on their access to medical care and schooling and on the local road network.
Rapid growth in the northern part of Colchester has been supported by land set aside for future rapid transit routes, whereas the Middlewick development would almost certainly be car-dependent. Any active travel or rapid transit routes into the centre of Colchester would involve retrofit infrastructure, with its inevitable compromises. The site is, effectively, landlocked by well-established 1950s urban sprawl. Any movement to the centre of Colchester, or even west to the A12, will not be possible by rapid transit or active travel, by nature of the site being, effectively, infill.
The Minister will certainly be aware that Colchester is one of the largest garrisons in the country and is proudly home of 16 Air Assault Brigade, the UK’s rapid reaction force. Should Middlewick be retained, I have no doubt that it could and would be used as a training area. Although I understand the argument for rationalising the estate and consolidating on to one range to serve the garrison, it seems short-sighted for the Ministry of Defence to sell a prime parcel of land that has been a training area for almost 200 years and that serves an established garrison that is likely to grow further.
Important as all of the above is, I want to spend the rest of my speech focusing on one critical argument against the sale and development. Ecologists have told me that developing the site would go down as one of the worst cases of eco-vandalism that our country has ever seen. Middlewick is a site of huge ecological significance. It is one of the few remaining areas in England that contains rare acid grassland, which is a UK biodiversity action plan habitat. The Essex Wildlife Trust has previously stated:
“Middlewick Ranges is one of the most important and valuable Local Wildlife Sites in the Colchester borough. It is exceptionally valuable for its areas of acid grassland habitat and diverse invertebrate populations, which include a substantial number of rare and threatened species.”
I hear colleagues say various things when they oppose developments, but let me be absolutely clear: over 1,400 invertebrate species rely on the site, including 167 with conservation status. That includes red list species such as the necklace ground beetle, the fastest declining beetle in the UK. In terms of invertebrates, the site is one of the most valuable in the country. This rare acid grassland has up to 25 plant species per square metre, and the habitat has in part been developed because of the site’s use as ranges and because the public have not had access with dogs, vehicles and other things.
I want to quote Stephen Falk, an experienced entomologist and ecologist. He is one of Britain’s leading experts on pollinators and their identification, ecology conservation and management. It is a long quote, but a valuable one:
“I am astonished and disturbed by the claims that high quality acid grassland can be recreated on unsuitable soils elsewhere simply by adding Sulphur. I would suggest there is a basic misunderstanding of what acid grassland actually is! It is not ‘acidic’ grassland, or ‘acidified’ grassland (i.e. any grassland treated with acid to produce a lower pH). Acid grassland is a complex ecological ‘community’ of plants, insects and fungal communities, often of great antiquity. It is a grassland that often features a long historic continuity of key microhabitats (such as bare, sandy ground and boggy ground) and unusual plant assemblages. The invisible soil profiles of acid grassland (hidden from the eye but formed over many centuries if not millennia by rainwater leaching) cannot be recreated by simply adding Sulphur. But those rare and precious soil profiles (mostly now lost by modern farming practices or development) are the vital foundation for all that lives above. To suggest that simply adding Sulphur can recreate an ancient soil profile, an ancient seed bank, or ancient (and isolated) plant, invertebrate and fungal communities, is one of the most controversial claims I’ve encountered during my many years working in nature conservation. It should be treated with the utmost suspicion”.
I stress that rare acid grassland has never been recreated anywhere else. The idea that it can be is based on one study, based on arable sandy land. In the opinion of experts, it is practically impossible, and any theory that it can be done is based on bad science. I am told that the concept of replacing irreplaceable habitats that are hundreds of years old, such as this, is deeply flawed.
Let us be clear what the proposed sale and development actually means. It means replacing the rare acid grassland on adjacent or alternative land. That means taking the current rich, tall grassland, ploughing it up and adding sulphur in what will be one of the UK’s biggest ever science experiments—an experiment that, I need not remind the House and the Minister, is at the expense of a priority habitat and that is displacing 1,400-plus invertebrate species, 167 of which have conservation status. We are fooling ourselves if we think that, once this grassland is built on, it will ever be recreated. This will mean a huge loss to the ecology of not just my constituency but the entire country.
Hon. Members should not just take my word for it. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds carried out a study at its Minsmere reserve in Suffolk, which was a strict habitat creation project with a conservation objective to create suitable habitat from farmland of low biodiversity value for breeding. This is where it gets interesting. That single case study has been used in the ecological evidence base report by Stantec to justify the compensation or mitigation proposals for the Middlewick Ranges site, but the RSPB feels so strongly that this work is not theoretically possible that it recently wrote to Colchester City Council to advise that it does not wish its work at Minsmere to be used in any way to legitimise or justify the destruction of the rare acid grassland or heathland—both priority habitats—at Middlewick. The RSPB says that it is not comparable or analogous and that it does not consider that any mitigation or compensation could be suitably bespoke, deliverable or effective.
The Minister will know that the Government recognise the importance of biodiversity and have published guidance on how to comply with biodiversity duties. The guidance states that public authorities in England must consider what they can do to conserve and enhance biodiversity. The Minister’s Department has the opportunity to put a stop to this, and I hope I have gone some way to making that case.
I want to send a clear message to the following people, who I hope are also listening. To the leadership of Colchester City Council, I say this. The local plan is currently being reviewed, with a call for sites. That is an opportunity to correct the mistake that has been made and to remove Middlewick Ranges from the local plan. If that cannot be done now, the council can signal its intention to do it when the plan is reviewed, which I understand must be done no later than early 2026. The council has the power to stop this act of eco-vandalism.
To any developers that are considering making an offer for the site, I want to be absolutely clear that, should they obtain planning permission, my constituents and I will hold them to account, and indeed the Ministry of Defence, to ensure that they deliver against all—every single one—of the ecological and financial conditions placed on them, no ifs, no buts.
To come back to the Minister, I am not one to make an ask without positive, practical alternative suggestions. He can retain the land as an MOD training area or mothball the site for future use by an expanding garrison. He can explore the potential for biodiversity credits. He can look into partnerships with local authorities to deliver a country park with revenue-raising potential. Building on the Wick is not something that my constituents or I ever want to see, and it is not too late to save this beautiful Army training area and ecological system. I strongly urge my friend the Minister to listen and act.
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. It is a particular pleasure to respond to my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince). I congratulate him on not only calling this debate, but particularly, on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, on commissioning out from Sandhurst as a captain in the Adjutant General’s Corps. That is a great achievement for a sitting, serving MP, and one who works so hard.
Let me also add a personal note, as my hon. Friend is standing down. No one knows what the future holds for any of us, but I was elected alongside him, and he has been the best of the best in this place. He was a brilliant Minister. I had the criminal Bar strikes as a Justice Minister, and I know how hard things were for him as a Health Minister. However, he has worked particularly hard as a constituency MP, and he has shown that again today. Above all, has always had compassion at the core of everything he has done. He is a credit to his constituents, and I wish him well, whatever happens.
Turning to the subject of today’s debate, my hon. Friend rightly said that Colchester has a long and proud military history. The town is the home of some of the most highly trained, high-readiness forces in the world. Our premier airborne forces have launched from Essex to respond to some of the most hostile environments in the world, all in the name of protecting our national security and upholding our commitments around the world.
We are here to discuss my hon. Friend’s valid concerns about the disposal of Middlewick Ranges, with a rebalancing of the defence estate to more modern and efficient facilities at Fingringhoe that will help to keep the forces in the east of England at their very best and most lethal and ready to defend our nation at a moment’s notice. We have proudly run ranges from the site for many years, but it no longer offers us the optimum environment for our training needs. We have, however, been committed to seeing the site released to support local need, and have therefore worked with the local authority since 2016, as my hon. Friend correctly pointed out.
First, it is important to stress that the Ministry of Defence’s reason for selling the site, in the simplest terms, is that it has become surplus to the requirements of a modern armed force. At a time when families across the nation are feeling the pinch, it is right that each Government Department looks at all its outgoings and ensures that, where we are spending large amounts of public money, we are delivering services in the most cost-efficient way. Bringing Middlewick Ranges up to a usable standard would require significant amounts of public money when we have similar and more efficient facilities literally down the road.
Value for money for the taxpayer and ordinary families across the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester is at the core of this decision. The enhanced facilities at Fingringhoe will offer modern, electronically operated targets that provide better training for our armed forces. They can also offer training for an additional 20,000 troops a year above what is currently available in the Colchester area. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has just departed, but I was about to address the point about mothballing and the hon. Member’s concern about the use of the site by the reserves. To be clear, we believe that we are more than supporting effective training in the area by using this new site.
The key point is that the world is becoming increasingly volatile. If we are asking our armed forces to respond to global crises, it is right that we, as the MOD, invest in their skills and the facilities we use to train them. Our service personnel make huge sacrifices to serve King and country, and it is our duty to make sure they are adequately prepared to respond to the most demanding circumstances. That is why these new facilities are part of a £5.1 billion investment in a more modern, green and sustainable defence estate that can meet the demands of our ever-busier armed forces.
It is commendable that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester made positive alternative suggestions. From a practical perspective, we have found that the site is becoming difficult and increasingly impractical to use due to its proximity to residential properties and public footpaths. Incursions have been occurring and became a risk to those operating the ranges. There were simply too many people from the local community walking across live firing exercises—so much so that we were unable to conduct training safely. With no firing at the range since 2021, it would take a significant amount of public funds to make the perimeter safe for the people of Colchester and for our armed forces training there. My hon. Friend said the site should be mothballed and it is, in effect, currently mothballed.
That all being said, I recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns around any new development that could be proposed following the sale of this land. New housing causes great consternation to communities up and down the country, and particularly where it impacts on our beautiful habitat—I know that as an MP for a rural constituency near my hon. Friend’s. Equally, however, there will be people in my hon. Friend’s constituency who cannot afford to get on the housing ladder, and I am sure that is true in your constituency too, Sir Charles.
The release of this land can also be seen as a great opportunity for the local community, who can develop it to meet their needs and, at the same time, encourage the local authority to place suitable protections on any environmental considerations. My hon. Friend says that he is not a nimby, and I put on record that he absolutely is not. Colchester has seen huge growth, but the reality is that new housing has to be allocated somewhere.
I remind my hon. Friend that it is, of course, not the MOD that will decide the future use of the site. That decision is for the local authority, its planning department, the future owner, and the local community as part of any public consultation process that forms part of any ultimate planning process. Such a process will consider and balance the need for housing with the requirement to deliver biodiversity net gain measures that protect and enhance the fascinating ecology of the site.
Of course, in looking at those concerns, the local authority will also have to consider the transport issues my hon. Friend referred to, which are always a consideration with new developments. We have the same issues in my constituency of South Suffolk; where new developments are proposed, there are concerns about pressure on roads and so on. However, that is fundamentally for the local authority to consider.
My hon. Friend is rightly concerned and speaks passionately about the lowland acid grassland found at the site. That is precisely why the MOD has invested significant funds on ecology studies over a three-year period to inform our understanding before the disposal of the site and to inform the MOD concept plan on how the site could be developed sympathetically. The concept plan, or master plan—to give it the real name for those familiar with the matter—recommended that more than 63% of the allocated land for development is kept as green space, while the disposal area includes another 44 hectares of green open space for recreational use and ecological enrichment. The plan also suggested leaving the most ecologically valuable habitats untouched and advocated avoiding and protecting the woodland at Birch Brook. That is just one way any potential new development could be approached, and the future owner and the local authority will no doubt have other, equally exciting ideas that will bring new opportunities and enrichment to the area. However, there is one thing I know for certain: my hon. Friend, as a brilliant constituency MP, will hold them to account on that, as he clearly stated.
The Ministry of Defence is, and always has been, committed to seeing this land used in a way that benefits the local community and environment, and we make that clear to potential future bidders for the site as part of tours of the site and the marketing literature we have released. While we are, of course, not able to impose those conditions, we are doing our best to make them clear to the local authority and any interested bidders looking at the marketing materials for the site.
My hon. Friend’s commitment to the site, and indeed to his whole constituency, has been abundantly evident today, and I applaud him for raising this matter. I fully appreciate his need to ensure that the area is developed in a way that protects the site’s ecological value and, at the same time, benefits the community in a meaningful and sustainable way, such as in relation to transport and other matters. I hope that I have been able to set out the main drivers behind the MOD’s decision to sell the site, which are the public interest at a time of economic challenge, when public finances are under intense scrutiny, and the need to support our military requirements. It is vital that we can train our armed forces to the very best of our ability, so that they can protect and defend our national security. [Interruption.]
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
We conclude, as thunder crackles around us.
Question put and agreed to.
Arms Export Licences: Israel
(4 months, 4 weeks 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
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered arms export licences for sales to Israel.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am pleased to have secured this timely debate and grateful to the House authorities for granting it. More than 18,000 Palestinians, including more than 7,000 children, have been killed. More than 80% of the population—1.8 million people—has been displaced. Almost 100 journalists have been killed—the highest number in any global conflict in more than 30 years. More than 100 UN aid workers have been killed— more than in any conflict in UN history. This weekend, the UN warned that half the population of Gaza is facing starvation. Behind those horrifying statistics are real people with names, hopes, dreams, families and friendships that are just as real as yours or mine, Sir Christopher.
I start this debate by talking about Nour, a 17-year-old student from a town just south of Gaza City who wanted to be a doctor when she left school. In a page recovered from her diary, Nour spoke of her hope to make her family proud. Nour was killed when an Israeli airstrike hit her home on 11 October. I will also talk about 26-year-old Safaa and her baby girl Elyana, who were killed in their sleep when an Israeli fighter jet bombed their house in the southern city of Rafah. Then, there is Reem, whose lifeless body was cradled by her grandfather after her family home in al-Nuseirat refugee camp was hit by a strike. Her grandfather Khaled stroked her hair and kissed her goodbye for the last time, pinning her earring to his jacket as a badge to remember her by. He said,
“She was the soul of my soul”.
The horror is so extreme that it would be impossible to talk about all the people who have been indiscriminately killed. Just listing the names of all those who have been killed, let alone telling their stories, would take nearly 20 hours. I say that because I want to remind colleagues and the whole House of the shared humanity of those being slaughtered in Gaza today. I say it because, whether we like it or not, this place is deeply complicit in the atrocities we see being inflicted on the Palestinian people. Not only do the British Government provide vital diplomatic support for Israel, most recently joining the US as the lone voices refusing to call for a ceasefire at the UN Security Council—a move the US shamefully vetoed—but we supply the Israeli military with hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of arms.
Actually, the true figure is shrouded in secrecy. Under open export licences, arms companies can export an unlimited quantity of specified equipment with no further monitoring and no tracking of their total value.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and she is absolutely right to ask why the UK abstained in the vote at the United Nations. She makes the point that we can never find out what arms exports have left this country and gone to Israel. Is it not time we had transparency in the arms trade?
Zarah Sultana
Absolutely, and I will go on to talk about the Bill I have presented to the House. This is what the debate is about: getting the Government to commit to ending these arms licences so that we are not complicit in war crimes.
We do track closed export licences, through which we know that the Government have handed arms licences to the Israeli Government worth £474 million since 2015.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this powerful debate. She mentioned that the UK Government have closed export licences with Israel. The criteria outlining who can receive arms export licences from the Government include strong wording in relation to violence against women and girls. Does my hon. Friend agree we need to ensure that any arms exported from this country are not used to facilitate unlawful military action?
Zarah Sultana
We have a licensing regime, but there are loopholes that are often exploited, which is what we are seeking to address.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and she rightly highlights the humanitarian nightmare people in Gaza face. Does she agree that it is an absolute duty on our Government, as it is on other Governments, that where arms or components used in arms are used in violation of international law and to commit war crimes, there must be an immediate suspension of exports and a review?
Zarah Sultana
Absolutely—I completely agree with that intervention.
Just to go back a little, we know that we have issued arms licences to the Israeli military worth £474 million since 2015. Included in those licences are parts for F-35 fighter jets—stealth aircraft that are currently unleashing hell on Gaza.
According to US arms company Lockheed Martin, which is the lead contractor for these jets, they are:
“ the most lethal...fighter jets in the world.”
Some 15% of the parts for these aircraft are made in British factories, including the Brighton factory that makes the weapon-release system on the jet, allowing it to unleash deadly airstrikes on the people below. We must ask whether it was a British-made release system that sent death screaming on to Safaa and her baby girl in Rafah? Was Nour robbed of her dream of becoming a doctor because a British-made weapon launched an airstrike on her home? And were British-made arms involved in robbing Khaled of his beautiful grand-daughter? The answer is that we do not know, although there is no doubt that British-made arms have been used in the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza. Despite hollow protestations by Ministers, there is also no doubt that Israel has committed clear violations of international law, as the UN Secretary-General, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others have said.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate and for allowing us the opportunity to call for a halt to arms sales to Israel. Like many of us in the House, she will be alarmed at the stance of the UK Government, who say they believe Israel should adhere to international law and yet take no action and make no statement when the evidence mounts that Israel is not doing so. Does she agree that halting arms sales until it can be proven that these arms are not being used as part of war crimes would be a practical step that the Government could take and would increase their credibility when they mouth pious words about international law?
Zarah Sultana
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. British credibility has been damaged, especially by the vote at the UN Security Council. If we are to show true leadership—moral leadership—that is an important step, which I hope the Government will take.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Lady for her powerful and important speech. I also want to put on the record the name of Professor Refaat Alareer, who was a colleague of my constituent Professor Alison Phipps. He was her Gazan link in her work with refugees from Gaza. Sadly, he lost his life in an airstrike.
The problem is that the UK is continuing to supply weapons to Israel. We have talked about breaches of international law, and the UK becomes complicit in those breaches of international law, which puts us in a difficult position.
Zarah Sultana
Absolutely. To be true partners calling for peace, we cannot be arming one side of the conflict; we need to secure a political settlement to the crisis.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
We are often told by Ministers, and no doubt this Minister will make the point later, that we have one of the toughest arms export control regimes in the world, yet we hardly ever see evidence of how these tough rules are applied in practice. Does that leave the hon. Lady suspecting, as it leaves me suspecting, that this regime really is not what it is cracked up to be?
Zarah Sultana
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Later I will touch on how we halted arms sales to Israel when David Cameron led the Government. So it has happened in the past, and the fact that we are not seeing action now makes us question things.
Several hon. Members rose—
Zarah Sultana
Many hands are going up—I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy)
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this extremely important debate. She has touched on the arms sales, which have continued over a number of years, and on the fact that the UK has continued to supply arms to Israel, which I believe makes us complicit in the occupation of the west bank and the use of arms to suppress people there. She said she was going to talk about the precedents we have had for suspending arms sales where it is clear that there are concerns about their benefiting human rights violations. Does my hon. Friend agree that this could be very much like the time the UK had an embargo on the sale of arms to Israel from 1982 to 1984, following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
Zarah Sultana
Yes, I agree. In the past, we have shown that we can take leadership, and I mentioned the example of when David Cameron stopped arms sales, although we resumed them afterwards. On this occasion, we can see that clear violations of international law are taking place, and we cannot continue arms sales.
I will make a bit of progress. What makes the Government’s refusal to suspend arms sales even more horrifying is that Israeli officials have been quite open about their intent in Gaza. At the beginning of the assault, an Israeli military spokesperson said that “the emphasis” of bombing was on
“damage and not on accuracy”.
Another official promised to turn Gaza into a “city of tents”, while the former head of the Israeli National Security Council said that the aim was to make Gaza
“a place where no human being can exist.”
The National Security Minister said that the only thing that should enter Gaza is
“not a gram of humanitarian aid”
but
“hundreds of tons of explosives”.
More recently, an Israeli Minister said that the war would be “Gaza’s Nakba”, which is a reference to the 1948 catastrophe in which hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forcibly expelled from their homes and never allowed to return. Given that stated intent, and actions to match it, UN experts have warned of a “genocide in the making”. Let us be clear: if this is a genocide in the making, British-made weapons are almost certainly part of making that genocide happen.
None of that is to deny or downplay Hamas’s appalling attack on 7 October, when 1,200 people—the majority civilians—were killed. I condemn that attack once again, as I have done repeatedly in the Chamber, and call again for the release of all hostages. As I have also said before, echoing the words of the UN Secretary-General, those crimes do not excuse what we have witnessed since.
Unlike those awful crimes, Israel’s assault on Gaza has been carried out with the Government’s unequivocal support and with British-made weapons. Disgracefully, selling arms for war crimes is not new for British Governments. Following Israel’s Operation Protective Edge in 2014, which human rights organisations said violated international law, the Conservative-led coalition Government undertook an investigation into arms sales to Israel, finding that those arms could have been used by the Israeli military in Gaza. That resulted in the Government committing to suspend sales if Israel resumed its military assault.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I thank the hon. Lady for her powerful speech, which is setting out the scale of this emergency. She is correct to say that, almost two years ago, a UK Minister said that UK export controls
“help ensure that controlled items are not used…in…serious violations of international humanitarian law.”
Does she agree that the consolidated list is meaningless if arms continue to be exported to Israel in this context?
Zarah Sultana
Absolutely. Those are hollow words if there is no action.
Following the 2008 to 2009 Gaza war, the Labour Government admitted that British-made arms had been used by Israel, prompting the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, to apologise and to affirm that Israeli misuse of equipment would inform future licence applications.
The truth is that the current criteria for export licences should be enough to stop their sale. Under both UK and international law, the Government are required to prevent the transfer of military equipment to a state if there is a clear or overriding risk that it could be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international law. That is what criteria 1 and 2 of the strategic export licensing criteria say. If those criteria were consistently applied, there would be a de facto arms embargo on Israel, since this military equipment is used to uphold Israel’s military occupation of the Palestinian territories, including the infrastructure of the illegal west bank settlements—illegal, of course, under international law and according to UK policy—and in the transfer of prisoners from occupied territory into Israel, which the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has noted as being a violation of the Geneva convention.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate. She said that we do not know about the arms sales, and indeed we do not, but somebody does. Should we not be able to expect more of companies in the UK, and that they will not be like immoral drug dealers on the corner, selling to whoever, whenever, regardless of the consequences? The executives of those companies know and the companies themselves know. Should they not show us all exactly what they are doing? We expect companies that live among us in the UK not to be funding or aiding and abetting death in Gaza, as is happening at the moment.
Zarah Sultana
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
Amnesty International says the
“arms licensing system is not fit for purpose in assessing risk, is riddled with loopholes and is in…need of root-and-branch reform.”
That is why I introduced a Bill this week that would allow us to launch an inquiry into the use of arms sold to foreign states and to suspend arms to any state that might use them in violation of international law.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent speech and for all she is doing on this important issue. I associate my remarks with the personal approach she has taken, because I have a constituent whose partner is being bombed as he tries to evacuate from south Gaza. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to arm sales to Israel, we should think about arm sales to the US, Saudi Arabia and many other countries, and ensure that we tighten the licensing arrangements for arms manufacturers to those countries?
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. This is a debate about arms sales to Israel.
Zarah Sultana
Thank you, Sir Christopher. Since being elected, I have raised the issue of arms licences for regimes such as Saudi Arabia, which used British-made weapons in Yemen, so I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill I presented would suspend sales to not just Israel but the likes of Saudi Arabia, whose war in Yemen led to the death of thousands of people with, again, clear and well-documented violations of international law. In another example of shameful disregard for human rights, that war was also facilitated by our Government and is therefore linked to this debate. Export licences to Saudi Arabia since the beginning of the war have been worth a staggering £6.8 million, which is why I have repeatedly called for the House to suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Is she aware that only two weeks ago in the House the Secretary of State for Defence claimed that arms sales to Israel in the past year were less than £50 million? The figures she has given suggest that he had misinformed himself before he made that statement. Does she have a credible figure for how much is sold to Israel, as well as for the value of Elbit Systems sales and how many of those sales are made internally within Elbit Systems back to Israel itself?
Zarah Sultana
As I mentioned, a lot is shrouded in secrecy. We do have the figure of £474 million, but we believe that the figure is much higher. There needs to be true transparency, especially with the arms sales coming from the Government.
Ending this bloody exchange is one of the steps the Government must take to end their complicity in the massacre in Gaza. Even as countries across the globe, and figures from the Pope to the President of France, call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, the Government still refuse to heed that call, ignoring the 76% of the British public who back it. Beyond the immediate need to end the bloodshed, Britain has an historical responsibility to push for a just and lasting peace, having been the mandatory power in Palestine during the 1948 Nakba. As we witness a new and even more terrible Nakba, Britain must honour that duty by demanding an immediate ceasefire and ending arm sales today, and by insisting on ending the illegal occupation and on a free Palestine tomorrow.
Israel’s war on Gaza is not the first time British-made weapons have been used for war crimes, but it must be the last. I conclude with these questions to the Minister. Given the overwhelming evidence that Israel has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, what assessment have the Government made of Israel’s conformity with international law? Have they made any assessment of it? If they have not, will they commit to immediately making that assessment? Given the overwhelming evidence that Israel has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, what assessment have the Government made of Israel’s actions in the light of our export licensing criteria? Again, have they made any assessment of that? If they have not, will they assess whether Israel’s actions are consistent with our licensing criteria as they stand? Finally, will the Government uphold our export licensing rules, international law and basic principles of humanity by immediately suspending arms sales to Israel? I look forward to the Minister’s reply and thank everybody who has joined us for the debate.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) for bringing the debate to this Chamber.
Hamas’s barbaric 7 October attack on Israel featured unspeakable acts of brutality and sexual violence. The attacks left 1,200 dead and thousands injured and the bodies of many victims remain unidentifiable due to the severity of the violence. Hamas chose to break an existing ceasefire the day it launched the heinous genocidal attack. Acts of terrorism have not ceased since and more than 12,000 rockets have been launched indiscriminately at Israel since 7 October.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
Israel is fighting a war that it did not want or start against an enemy that shows complete and utter disdain for its own civilian population by embedding its terrorist infrastructure in schools, hospitals and mosques. Does my hon. Friend agree that Israel has a legal right to defend itself and to remove the grave threat posed by a terrorist organisation whose stated aim is to wipe it completely from the world map?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is, of course, absolutely right: Israel does have the right to defend itself. I would argue that the biggest threat to the Palestinian people is not Israel, but Hamas. We must bear that in mind.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
It is very important when anybody takes any sort of action that civilians are protected. As with all wars, there are casualties. I wish Hamas had borne that in mind when they started this and broke the ceasefire in the first place. However, with any action that is taken, I would protect civilians and ensure that there are safe routes and humanitarian pauses so that we can ensure that we save as many lives as possible and prevent this from happening. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, and it is important that we minimise casualties on both sides. We encourage that and we encourage a long-standing peace.
Of course, there will be casualties on both sides, and that is something that we want to avoid, but the intention to repeat the attack again and again has been boasted of very publicly. Some 137 hostages remain cruelly within Hamas control, and the group is using them as a sickening bargaining chip. No democratic state can be expected not to act in self-defence when faced with such an existential terror threat. I applaud the UK Government for resolutely supporting Israel’s duty to its citizens to remove the threat posed by Hamas but, like everyone in this place, I hope for a just and lasting peace in the region. That is why I believe that the Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, was right last week when he said:
“If we leave Hamas in charge of even a part of Gaza, there will never be a two-state solution because you can’t expect Israel to live next to a group of people that want to do October 7 all over again.”
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I will give way to the hon. Lady first and then to the hon. Gentleman.
Carol Monaghan
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas. My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) asked whether those 18,000 civilians were defence. I would add, are 6,000 children defence? We now have a situation where 800 experts say that this could possibly be a genocide against the Palestinian people. How can we continue to support it, because, if we do continue to support Israel in their bombardment of Gaza, we are complicit in this genocide?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I think it is wrong to imply, as the debate appears to, that Israel alone is responsible for the current situation in Gaza. Hamas have ruthlessly controlled Gaza now for almost two decades, and have inflicted a great amount of suffering on the civilian population. They have also deliberately prioritised this genocidal terrorism with direct support from the Iranian regime. Israel did not seek this war. It hoped, wrongly, that Hamas was moderating itself and more interested in governing the Gaza strip, but that does not appear to be the case.
Colum Eastwood
Israel’s stated aim in this conflict is the destruction of Hamas, and the UK and US Governments have given it a blank cheque to achieve that aim. I have not met one serious expert who believes the destruction of Hamas is possible, so how many deaths will it take before the UK Government closes their cheque book to Israel?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that a blank cheque has been provided. If we look at the comments of the Foreign Secretary and the former Foreign Secretary, we know we have spoken with our international partners and are very keen to see that two-state solution, and that means working with Palestinians as well. As I said, the biggest enemy of the Palestinian people is Hamas; we want to work together to finish this conflict as soon as possible and move on.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman says that Hamas is the biggest threat to Israel, but will he not acknowledge that Hezbollah, located to the north of Israel with up to 130,000 rockets, is probably more of a threat? Will he also acknowledge that we have to look at the bigger geopolitics? This is a proxy war being fought with Hamas as one combatant, and many civilians as the poor, unfortunate victims of this war.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point; he is absolutely correct on the Hezbollah situation. This conflict involves several different sides—I mentioned Iranian involvement—and there are a number of people who simply do not want peace in the region as it is not in their interests, whether that involves funding groups such as Hezbollah or such as Hamas. Israel was looking at a deal on relations with Saudi Arabia, so the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the geopolitics are also important; we must not look at Israel and Gaza purely in isolation. I thank him for making that excellent point. I agree with him and we need to continue to focus on that.
The approach to Hamas has proved misguided and so far it has shown the world the true brutal face of the organisation. I believe that calls for an arms embargo against our democratic ally are deeply wrong, and all the more so in the absence of clear calls for Hamas—the instigator and belligerent in this situation—to surrender unconditionally.
The Minister will be aware that the UK has long benefited from the Israeli military’s technology. Every day it protects the lives of many British soldiers. For example, we have Israeli-made battlefield medical technology, techniques for dealing with suicide bombers, and technology to counter remotely detonated terrorist bombs. Those assets have all been used by the British Army to save lives.
Israeli drone technology such as the Watchkeeper WK45 has also been used by British forces in Afghanistan for intelligence collection, and the Sky Sabre missile defence system now protects the Falkland Islands—this uses the technology behind Israel’s Iron Dome system. It is worth noting that the Iron Dome has saved the lives of countless Israelis in recent weeks and has also played a major role in preventing the conflict from spiralling further, which of course we also want to do.
The 2030 road map signed by the UK and Israel is very welcome. It highlights further bilateral defence co-operation that will save the lives of British servicepeople for many years to come. Put simply, an arms embargo would jeopardise that invaluable co-operation. It is also worth noting at the outset that the UK already operates—as has been mentioned—the world’s most robust export licence controls. That is underpinned through strategic export license criteria that uphold the UK’s obligations under international law. It is worth bearing in mind that the UK’s defence exports to Israel are relatively small—just £42 million last year I believe—and many of its component parts are not used by Israeli forces in Gaza.
Calls for an arms embargo on Israel are part of the wider boycott campaign that the UK Government have resolutely rejected. It is harmful and divisive, and must be given no truck. I call on the Minister to restate that commitment today.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Lots of people want to speak, so I will be as brief as possible. I want to ask a number of questions, but I will just say as a preface that when someone has been in this House long enough and sat through the discussions about the various wars taking place, they get an understanding of the nature of war and of war crimes legislation. Whatever Hamas did, whatever people think, it was a war crime, and we have condemned that absolutely, but we created legislation globally after the second world war to determine how states could legally react to war crimes like that. Article 8 of the Rome statute, which set up the International Criminal Court, specifically designated war crimes: first, the use of weapons that were indiscriminate in their impact—that is, that affected civilians—and, secondly, the denial of the basic resources to survive, for civilian populations in particular. That is food, water and heat. The third element of war crimes under article 8 was the forced displacement of people from their homelands. I am afraid that whatever people think about what is happening in Gaza at the moment, what we are seeing are war crimes, according to the Rome statute; that is the case by any definition, but certainly on those three points. That is how we guide our reaction to activities by any state, whether it is Israel, Saudi or whoever, and, in guiding our behaviour, we have to recognise that if we in any way aid or provide support to a state acting in that way, we become complicit in those war crimes. That is the reality of where we are at the moment. I feel for the reputation of our country in the future because of the current behaviour of our Government.
A letter was written from a number of key organisations, and I want to raise the questions in it. It was written by Asad Rehman, chief executive of War on Want; Katie Fallon, director of advocacy at the Campaign Against Arms Trade; Sacha Deshmukh, chief executive of Amnesty International UK; and Yasmine Ahmed, UK director of Human Rights Watch. I want to raise some of the questions that they have asked. Has the Minister seen the letter? First, it calls for an immediate suspension of the extant licences and new export licences for Israel given the clear risk, in their view, that the component parts that are being transferred from the UK
“might be used to facilitate or commit…violations of international law”.
That includes actions that they believe are tantamount to war crimes. The question from those organisations is this: will the Government now suspend those licences?
Secondly, do the Government know whether British weapons or military equipment are being used in Gaza or not? We have heard from one Back Bencher that they are. The letter notes that in the past the UK admitted that it had supplied equipment and that that had been used by the Israel Defence Forces during hostilities in Gaza in 2009. Lord Cameron, as he now is, then introduced a procedure to suspend the operation, and there was a complete review of what was happening with the weapons that we had supplied. I think the minimum that we should be asking for now is for the Government to undertake a Lord Cameron-type review to see exactly how what we have supplied is being used and whether it is being used in Gaza, because if it is, I am afraid we become complicit in the war crime.
Another question that the organisations have asked is just what monitoring is taking place by the Government—what mechanism is in place that effectively to monitor what is going on? The further question that is asked is this: on what basis do the Government consider that there is no clear risk that arms licensed to Israel will be used in prohibited conduct as identified, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) said, in the strategic export licensing criteria. This goes back to the fact that the Government have warned in the past that if any of these weapons are used in this way, they will suspend the licence overall. Again, have the Government even taken that into consideration?
One question that we have asked consistently as the provision of £474 million of exports to Israel have gone on is whether the Government applied the restrictions that we had called for to prevent their use in the Occupied Palestinian Territories or against Palestinians. At least there are instances in which we could accept that we have been providing sufficient support to Israel to defend itself from external attack, but to allow these weapons to be used in the occupied territories means that they will be used against Palestinians or, indeed, some of the Palestinians who are Israeli citizens as well.
My final question is to ask the Government whether there have been any shipments of spare parts from the UK to Israel of UK-supplied components for Israeli F-16 and/or F-35 aircraft. As has been said, those are the aircraft that have been used in the indiscriminate bombing of Palestinians in Gaza and have caused such civilian loss of life.
Jeremy Corbyn
Does my right hon. Friend think an additional question might be what is carried in the RAF planes that are leaving RAF Akrotiri and apparently flying directly to Israel?
John McDonnell
That is why I am asking the question: the key components of those planes could be being used in the bombing of Gaza and the huge loss of life.
I reiterate what others have said: I find it difficult to participate in these debates without becoming extremely angry or emotional on all sides—both because I want the release of the hostages and because 7,000 children have now died. That cannot be right, and I believe it is a war crime. Anything that we are doing to give aid or comfort in this direction will ensure that we will be condemned in the future.
Finally, a number of us met Yachad today. We met with heroes and heroines from Palestine, Palestinians and Jewish Israelis. They are trying to campaign for peace. As part of their heroic campaign, one of their clear demands is for a ceasefire, so that we can release the hostages and at least plan for the future in peace.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, I must tell hon. Members that the wind-ups will start at 3.30 pm. That means that the demand exceeds the supply, and I will impose a three-minute time limit. I call Apsana Begum.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) for securing the debate and for everything she does, and is doing, in the pursuit of justice and human rights.
As my hon. Friend laid out, not only is Israel a major recipient of UK weapons, but UK weapons manufacturers are seeing enormous increases in stock prices. For example, BAE Systems’ stock increased by 11.7% just between 7 and 24 October. In addition to the value of official UK arms exports to Israel, commentators have noted a number of other forms of less public UK military assistance, which include broader trade that exploits the incorporation guidelines loophole.
Why is that significant? As has been mentioned, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry, 18,825 Palestinians have been killed since the outbreak in October. In fact, we know that the real number is much higher. To put that into perspective, Ukraine and Sudan are both widely understood by the international community to have unacceptable levels of civilian deaths, and the levels of slaughter have rightly been condemned as horrendous and horrific. On 21 November this year, the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine said in a press release that, since the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022:
“At least 10,000 civilians, including more than 560 children, have been killed”.
The United Nations also reports that more than 10,400 people have been killed in Sudan since April 2023. I repeat that those are disgracefully high levels of civilian deaths and should be condemned outright. I also repeat that, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry, 18,825 Palestinians have been killed since the outbreak in October—around 20,000 in around two months, and the vast majority are not combatants.
Israel is increasingly using its acceptable collateral damage threshold in such a way that hundreds of civilian casualties are acceptable to eliminate a single target. That is one of the simplest ways to explain the fact that the death toll includes such frightening numbers of children. In the words of the United Nations Secretary-General, Gaza is “graveyard for children”—what a terrible, terrible thing. Within weeks of the outbreak, Save the Children highlighted that the number of children killed in Gaza has surpassed the annual number of children killed across the world’s conflict zones since 2019. As we know, there are widespread concerns that war crimes, crimes against humanity and breaches of international law are continuing to take place.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an exceptional speech. Given the humanitarian catastrophe—as we have highlighted, over 18,000 people have died, including thousands of children—does she agree that if the UK is found to be arming Israel and not ceasing to do so, it would be complicit in this war crime?
Apsana Begum
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are bearing witness to this unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe. It is there before us, so we have a right to know how many Palestinians were slaughtered using UK-made weapons; how many children were dispatched using UK-traded armaments; how many women have been slain by ammunition from the UK; how many schools, hospitals and refugee camps have been annihilated with the help of UK engineering; and how much profit is being made from death, destruction and war crimes. What is the Government’s price tag for humanity?
We are told that the UK’s arms export system is based on the principle of avoiding a clear risk of British weapons being used to commit serious violations of international law—
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. We must move on, I am afraid. I call Richard Foord.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I want to talk about parliamentary scrutiny of these arms transfers to Israel because the current system is lacking. There is a good attendance today and it is excellent that lots of right hon. and hon. Members wanted to come to this debate but, frankly, we do not debate arms transfers very often. One reason for that is that we assume that Select Committees are all over this, but that is not the case.
My contribution is shaped by having worked at the University of Oxford, immediately before being elected last year, on export controls and preventing Oxford research from falling into the hands of adversaries. As well as being shaped by that and constituents’ opinions, my view is also shaped by having been bombarded by Iranian rockets. The difference between my personal experience and that of many Gazans at this time is that I had sufficient protection afforded to me by a counter-rocket system, not dissimilar to the iron dome. That is clearly not the case right now with the air and artillery attacks going on in Gaza today.
Liberal Democrat policy in this area is quite straightforward. We believe that arms exports should not take place to countries designated human rights priority countries by the FCDO. In 2021, the FCDO named Israel as one of those countries, but in the 2022 report on human rights and democracy, Israel slipped from the list and appeared instead under the Occupied Palestinian Territories entry in the register. None the less, I am of the opinion that, as a state named in that list in 2022, Israel should not be in receipt of UK arms.
Briefly, the Committees on Arms Export Controls are made up of members of four Select Committees—International Trade, Foreign Affairs, Defence and International Development—but they have not met since March. That is outrageous, and we need to do something about it.
I am pleased to say that Committee Chairs—three Conservative, one SNP and one Labour—wrote to the Leader of the House to say that the system cannot continue, and that we need a Standing Committee to examine arms transfers, including to places such as Israel. In her response, the Leader of the House said, essentially, that there is no requirement for that, but I am certain that it is required; otherwise, we will continue to find ourselves in situations where the Government are caught out for transferring arms to a country that is clearly in breach of human rights.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) for securing this important debate.
A number of my constituents have written asking me to speak in this debate and to use my influence to stop UK arms and military equipment being exported to Israel, as they may be used to facilitate or commit serious violations of international law, including war crimes.
Although the temporary pause in fighting between Israel and Hamas was welcome, it is now over. Fighting and killing have resumed and innocent Palestinians have been targeted the most, with brutality, bloodshed and war crimes. That is utterly condemnable and in clear violation of international humanitarian law. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both reported on Israel’s breaches and war crimes. The International Criminal Court has echoed their concerns about the disregard for human life and the rule of law. More than 21,000 Palestinians have been killed—40% of them children. Some 1.9 million people have been forcibly displaced—more than half of the population. The conflict is having a disproportionate effect on children and babies, and there is now a threat of starvation. We have to call that out now.
I am very concerned about our complicity in these horrors. I have already joined the calls for the supply of arms to the Israeli Government to be suspended, given that serious violations amounting to crimes under international law are being committed. The suspension should come urgently because we do not want our weapons to be used against innocent Palestinians any more.
I also repeat my calls for an immediate and permanent ceasefire by all parties to end this unprecedented civilian suffering, alongside the immediate release of all civilians and hostages.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
This week we marked the 75th anniversary of the UN’s universal declaration of human rights. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that we are speaking about the need to champion human rights while sending the very arms that are violating the human rights of millions of Palestinians?
Mohammad Yasin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I agree with him. I will finish on this point. A ceasefire is the only way to prevent deepening the catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza and give the space and time needed for us all to work towards a real, fair and enduring peace in the region.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) for raising this topic. It is right and proper that we scrutinise our licensing procedures in line with our international obligations. We have a strong product in arms sales. Thales, on the border of my constituency, with a strong Strangford workforce, is world renowned for its tremendous products. Its input into the local economy cannot be emphasised enough. With a 30-year heritage and world class engineering, Thales employs 500 people and contributes £77 million to Northern Ireland’s GDP. There is also an ecosystem of suppliers, and 91% of our local procurement in Northern Ireland is with small and medium-sized enterprises. That is the background for the arms sales and the importance of it, which the Minister understands.
Belfast has developed into a centre of excellence for Thales’s air defence and surface attack solutions. Thales has made a real difference in the war in Ukraine, and its product has been mentioned positively in this House as a tool for Ukraine to beat back the Russian invasion. The sale of the products has been essential to the war effort in Ukraine.
Israel was attacked on 7 October and its war against terror is ongoing. It is my belief that it is operating under international law and as such our arms sales can and should continue. The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) asked a question and a Government Minister responded:
“The UK Government takes its defence export responsibilities extremely seriously and operates some of the most robust export controls in the world. All applications for export licences are assessed on a case-by-case basis against strict criteria…The UK Government continues to monitor closely the situation in Israel and the OPTs and if extant licences are found to be no longer consistent with the criteria, those licences will be revoked.”
On 30 November 2023, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade said:
“Since the barbaric terrorist acts by Hamas against Israel on 7 October and the subsequent conflict in the region, the Government have been monitoring the situation very closely. The UK supports Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself and take action against terrorism, provided that that is within the bounds of international humanitarian law. Export licences are kept under careful and continual review as standard, and we are able to amend licences or refuse new licence applications if they are inconsistent with the strategic export licensing criteria.”—[Official Report, 30 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 1049.]
The Government clearly set the course.
I support the Government in that view. I know the benefit of arms deals to my local economy, I see the benefit of the product in the war in Ukraine, and I stand with Israel while they legally fight the war on terrorism within the realms of international law.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) for securing this important debate and for her powerful opening speech.
I will start by paying tribute to my constituents who have been calling for a peaceful settlement in Gaza. More than 2,000 of them have contacted me since the war began, and many of them are families who have been out in support of those suffering in Palestine. Sadly, I believe that the UK Government are instead complicit in the mass slaughter in Gaza, as well as the ongoing ethnic cleansing in the west bank. The Government are aware that MPs have raised concerns about arms exports before and during the current conflict. Only on 30 November 2023, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade said in response:
“Export licences are kept under careful and continual review as standard, and we are able to amend licences or refuse new licence applications if they are inconsistent with the strategic export licensing criteria.”—[Official Report, 30 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 1049.]
To my understanding, if there is a risk that arms exports may be used in internal repression or breaches of international law, or the arms may threaten regional peace and security, those licences can be revoked. It is quite clear that those benchmarks have been met.
The Secretary of State has it within her power to instruct the export control joint unit, which is responsible for processing licence applications. For clarity, that unit sits within the Department for Business and Trade, and it draws expertise from the FCDO and the Ministry of Defence to look at clear breaches. Why is that not being acted upon?
Only this week, Omer Bartov, an Israeli-born historian and professor of holocaust and genocide studies at Brown University, warned that
“Israel now has been conducting a war for weeks and weeks in which it has killed thousands and thousands of Palestinians. It has moved them to a very small part of the Gaza Strip. It has destroyed their property and not even made a commitment to allow them to return.”
That has been done with the support of the US and UK supplies.
We need a peaceful solution. We need the Government to stop being complicit in the murder and the movement of people away from their homes into a space where there is no humanitarian hope, no space for them to live, and they are dying. The numbers have been quoted, and loads of children have died. We need to stand up and be critical of the UK Government’s friendship with Israel, and point out where they are clearly in breach of international law.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
I endorse everything that the mover, the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), very eloquently said. Equally, in the limited time left, I want to comment on the issues raised by others around complicity. That can be direct or indirect, and the mover, as I say, very eloquently dealt with the direct. The indirect has obviously been touched upon by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). If we are facilitating the supply of weaponry to Israel by the Americans flying out of RAF Akrotiri, that is simply unacceptable and we are complicit. Not only do the Republic of Cyprus Government have a right to know what is happening at a sovereign UK airbase—so do the citizens of the United Kingdom. We need to know that there is no complicity there.
Secondly—I am conscious of time and others coming in—we have, according to a parliamentary question, been giving military aid to Israel, but it has been restricted to medical supplies. Now, that on its own sounds very grand: we have only given medical supplies since 7 October. However, that does not mean vaccinations for children or hip replacements for the elderly. It can only be described as medical aid for combat trauma. The equipment that is itemised in parliamentary answer 5416 is not going into an Israeli sitcom-version of “M*A*S*H”. It is not for something funny. It is being used by Israeli soldiers who are killed or injured in the Gaza strip.
I wish no one ill—not an Israeli soldier, nor indeed a Palestinian civilian—but we should not be supplying equipment that can only be described as for combat. That, by the broadest sense of the imagination, cannot be described as humanitarian aid. It is aid to the Israeli military; it is aid to comfort their soldiers. They require comfort, but they should not be doing this and we should not be supplying it.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) for securing this debate. The Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq, alongside the Global Legal Action Network, has recently applied for a judicial review of the Government’s export licences for the sale of British weapons to Israel. According to those organisations, since 2015 the value of British arms exports to Israel, as part of the standard licence grants, stands at around £474 million, with 58 open licences for the arms trade with Israel.
Existing criteria for assessing the suitability of arms exports states that where there is a clear risk that any weapon may be used in violation of international humanitarian law, no licence should be granted. It is abundantly clear to me and many others—hundreds of thousands of people across the UK—that there is more than a clear risk that Israel is using the weapons provided by the UK to commit atrocious crimes against the Palestinian people. Many people in this country and around the world suggest, and I agree, that it is both clear and certain that Israel is using weapons to commit war crimes against Palestinian civilians, and that the UK, in providing such weapons, is complicit.
It should bring shame on us all that our Government, in providing arms, have been complicit in such horrendous acts of violence and cruelty. Therefore I am here to echo the demands of my constituents that Israel should receive no weapons or arms of any kind from the UK Government, and that the Government should act to stop the conflict and work to restart the peace process now.
Tahir Ali
No, I will not—many other Members are still waiting to speak. Could the sale of arms be a condition from Israel for the UK Government abstaining at the Security Council? Could the sale of arms be a condition from Israel for this Government not recognising Palestine as a state? Could the sale of arms be a condition from Israel for not demanding a ceasefire? Can the Minister explain?
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The Israeli Government’s assault on Gaza has endured for over two months, and there is no end in sight. The atrocities committed by Hamas on 7 October were truly horrifying, and I know that I speak for every Member of this House when I say that such appalling acts cannot be justified, but they do not give the Israeli military licence to indiscriminately kill Palestinian civilians in retaliation. The IDF admits that civilians constitute two thirds of its victims, but the real proportion is likely to be much higher, given that around 70% of those killed are women and children.
Gaza has become a graveyard of children and parents, infants and elderly people, doctors, journalists and poets—thousands upon thousands of innocent people who simply wanted to get on with their lives in peace.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has quite rightly focused on the horrific situation in Gaza, like many other Members. However, when I visited the west bank earlier this year, the rate of murders, violent attacks and intimidation by illegal settlers was already on the rise, with the IDF too often either refusing to intervene or even protecting the attackers. Since the heinous attack on 7 October by Hamas, the death toll has reached intolerable levels in Gaza and the west bank. Labour Members are very clear that arms export licences should be granted only where there is no risk that they could be used in contravention of international law. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that Ministers—
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. This is an abuse of an intervention.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
No, resume your seat. I call Nadia Whittome.
Nadia Whittome
I completely agree with the point my hon. Friend makes. It is not only bombs causing death and despair in the strip: nine in 10 people in northern Gaza have gone a full day and night without eating; doctors are heroically battling to save lives with no anaesthetics, antiseptics or even clean water for their patients. The World Health Organisation has warned that untreated diseases caused by the siege and the resulting collapse of healthcare could claim even more lives than airstrikes.
This humanitarian catastrophe is not a result of some natural disaster, but the intended consequence of the actions of the Israeli authorities—actions that our Government still cannot bring themselves to condemn. Not only that: while Israeli Ministers call openly for a second Nakba, our Government continue to license arms sales to the Israeli Government.
Last night, I was honoured to host in Parliament representatives of Standing Together, a movement of Israeli Jews and Palestinians united for peace, justice and human rights. One of its organisers, Uri Weltmann, wanted to send this message to our Prime Minister: standing with the Israeli people is not the same as standing with this violent, hard-right Israeli Government. Bombing hospitals and starving children will not bring peace to Israel and Palestine. We must immediately suspend the sales of arms to the IDF and end the UK’s complicity with the Israeli Government’s war crimes. I called for that in 2021, when Gaza was once again under attack, and it is even more urgent now.
We must demand an immediate ceasefire, the unconditional release of hostages and for the siege to be lifted. We must push for a proper peace process, working towards a just, lasting solution that protects the safety, rights and self-determination of the people of both nations.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. I am afraid that we cannot take any more Back-Bench speeches, so I call Martin Docherty-Hughes, please, to wind up.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Thank you, Sir Christopher; it is good to see you.
Let me be clear: the barbarous attacks on 7 October have no justification whatsoever, and Hamas are a terrorist organisation and a death cult. They should release all the hostages immediately before being prosecuted as the war criminals they are. Furthermore, the Scottish National party agrees wholeheartedly with the right of Israel to defend itself. That is the very basis of sovereignty and of international relations. What should not have to be said, however, is that that right to self-defence should be in accordance with international law, or even with the most basic aspects of our common humanity.
Concepts around collective punishment and the treatment of prisoners in wartime are not what those on the Government Benches might speak about on GB News as the preserve of the Islington set; rather, they have been central to the very idea of human rights and the correct prosecution of a just war for as long as those concepts have existed. It will therefore be no surprise, I hope, to hear that those of us in the SNP have no compunction about supporting the aims of today’s debate, and we thank the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) for securing it
Before going on to the substantive reasons for that, I would like to briefly touch on the most underexamined aspects of this conflict: its intersection with the tedious and self-defeating debate on immigration in this political state, on which the Government seem intent on taking up more time today. We have had months of confected rage from those on the Government Benches about desperate people trying to cross the channel in flimsy boats, without really interrogating the many reasons why those people find themselves in that position.
If we consider the numbers of global conflicts that have caused instability and forced large numbers of people to flee, be they those in Syria, Afghanistan or Ukraine, and how these flows of people present opportunities for people traffickers ready to profit from human misery or indeed, on a broader level, for our geopolitical opponents to gain potential leverage by destabilising our democracies, we might expect one factor in this Government’s thinking to be how to avoid facilitating the sort of actions that set those population movements in motion.
As far as the people of Gaza actually having somewhere to go to escape the bombing, it is to Egypt and, within Egypt, to a part of the Sinai peninsula that has only recently come back under the full control of the Egyptian Government after Islamist insurrection. This is the first potential domino to fall, in a series that could see the return of the sort of instability that we saw in that country just over a decade ago. If this Government—and others, I must say, across Europe—found the prospect of 20 million Syrians on the move across the Med problematic, just wait until we see that happening with 100 million Egyptians.
Furthermore, these events do not take place in a vacuum. I would beseech both the Government and the Opposition spokespeople who follow me to take proper cognisance of the fact that our inability to ensure that our allies abide by international law in this instance will have a direct effect on how other states choose to approach their own obligations to international law in the future. We may not like the results, because we know that, while history may not always repeat itself, it certainly does rhyme.
I had not realised myself, until recently, the juxtaposition of the Suez crisis and the Hungarian uprising of 1956. The Soviet tanks poured into Budapest to—
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman patiently, and I was hoping that he was going to start talking about arms exports to Israel. We have had to cut the Back-Bench speeches short because more people wanted to talk about that subject, so I would be grateful if he now concentrated on the subject at hand.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
It is part of the narrative, Sir Christopher, and, as an Opposition spokesperson, I do believe that I have 10 minutes.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. If you are challenging the Chair, I am going to order you to resume your seat.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I am not challenging you, Sir Christopher; I am only trying to explore my own thinking on the very matter that you have asked me to come to, because I think it is critically important for the debate, which the hon. Member for Coventry South has brought today.
The reason that I mention that in relation to the Government’s decisions, in terms of the debate, is because the then Government were desperate to accrue international support for their invasion of the canal zone—which we have all seen the repercussions of—as opposed to actually supporting the people of Hungary. The difference between then and now, and this is what is important Sir Christopher, is that, I am afraid to say, unlike in 1956, there is no serious difference of opinion between the Government and the leadership of the Opposition—although that does not include some of the Opposition Members I see here today, I have to say.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. I will order the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat if he carries on about the Hungarian revolution. I was at school with somebody whose father served in the diplomatic service in 1956 in Budapest, and I would love to talk about that, but it is not the subject of today’s debate. I will give the hon. Gentleman one more chance.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Well, Chair, let me—sadly—move on, because clearly I am not being allowed to make the point that I wanted to make. However, I am sure that many Members can see the problems in which the Government and the leadership of the official Opposition find themselves.
Let me, sadly, bring my points to a close by reiterating my and my party’s position on these arms licences—I will be delighted to send my full speech on to any of my constituents, many hundreds of whom have emailed me about this issue, if they want to see it. Most of it will be of no surprise to anyone here today. The United Kingdom Government must do more than merely call on Israel to abide by international humanitarian law; they must be proactive in ensuring that no more innocent civilian lives are lost. The Israeli Government’s use of force has surpassed being legal and proportionate. There is a serious and pressing concern among the international community that states contributing to Israel’s military front may be complicit in the breach of international law and the death of over 15,000 innocent Palestinian civilians.
As such, Sir Christopher, we are asking the UK Government to cease extending arms licences to the state of Israel and to immediately halt the export of weapons or components, as has been mentioned, to the state of Israel, alongside our calls for an immediate ceasefire, the recognition of the Palestinian state and the support of the International Criminal Court’s investigation into potential war crimes.
But let us be clear: the United Kingdom will pay dearly for the moral equivalence that its current policy entails. While even the Labour leadership might not want to say it, we in the SNP are more than happy to remind the Government of this fact: violating international law may be a great wheeze to try and impress Daily Mail readers, but it has a habit of eating away at the state’s international reputation like acid. In this case, it is a great tragedy that the people of Gaza and others now involved in this conflict have to suffer so.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Christopher.
I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) for securing this undoubtedly important debate. Like many other Members, I have received many emails from concerned constituents about this issue. As we all recognise, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire in the extreme. Following the horrific attacks of 7 October, more than 18,000 people have been killed in Israel’s operation and nearly 2 million people have been displaced. The scale of death and destruction seen over the last two months has been intolerable and truly appalling. Like so many Members in all parts of the House, I am particularly heartbroken by the death of so many children.
I have said many times that Israel has a right to defend itself from Hamas’s attacks, but the right to defence is not an unqualified right; it is not a blank cheque. At all times, Labour has demanded that Israel act in accordance with international law. That requires acting in line with the principles of necessity, distinction, proportionality and precaution. Labour also supports the independence of the International Criminal Court and recognises the court’s jurisdiction over the conduct of all parties in Gaza. The international community can and must push for a renewed cessation of violence, and use that to make political progress towards what we all want to reach: an end to this conflict and a permanent ceasefire.
Let me turn to the specific issue of defence exports. It is important to state clearly what an incredibly important role the UK defence industry plays in our economy. Our defence industry is rightly a source of pride across many communities in Britain. It helps to grow the economy, it creates jobs and it helps to keep our country safe. Let us remember that the UK defence industry supports 133,000 jobs in the UK. Many of those jobs are well paid and highly skilled. In my view, it is vital that we retain and develop a domestic defence capability, a sovereign capability, rather than become over-reliant on others. The defence industry is vital to our national security and to equipping our armed forces and those of many of our NATO allies. It is only because of that defence that we can contribute weapons to Ukraine so that it is able to defend itself against aggression.
At the same time, however, it is essential that the defence industry is subject to a robust set of export controls, and Labour is equally clear on this point. That is the reasonable thing to do. Export controls help the UK to ensure compliance with our international obligations under the arms trade treaty, for example. They also help to retain confidence in the UK’s world-leading industry. Indeed, we believe that the arms export regime should be strengthened, with the aim of ensuring that it is transparent and fully committed to upholding international law, and I agree that the role of Parliament should be much stronger in that function.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
Does the hon. Member recognise that the UK has licensed over £470 million in arms sales to Israel since 2015, and that the real number could be far higher because much of the sales volume is hidden behind open licences that allow unlimited exports that are not included in reported numbers? Indeed, according to the Campaign Against Arms Trade, the value of defined-value arms licences since 2015 is £560 million. When he talks about transparency, does he agree that the Government need to be more transparent and clear about the extent of arms licensing?
Wayne David
The hon. Lady makes her point extremely well. That is why we need transparency. I cannot honestly respond to her question because I do not know; I do not think anybody knows, apart from the Government. Transparency is vital, and it is imperative that we have the scrutiny of Parliament in the future.
These rules should apply consistently and equally to all countries. Specifically with regard to Israel, I note that the Government have said that no offensive military equipment has been delivered to Israel since 7 October. They previously said that they keep relevant licences under review and will not grant an export licence because to do so would be inconsistent with strategic export licensing criteria.
As the criteria state, UK arms exports should not be allowed if there is a serious risk that those arms will be used for external aggression or internal repression. Not only is this a moral issue, but it reflects the legal requirements that the Government are obliged to follow. The criteria include—as they should—stringent requirements in relation to international law. Under the export criteria, a licence should not be granted if
“there is a clear risk that the items might be used to commit or facilitate internal repression…or… a serious violation of international humanitarian law”.
It is there in black and white. The Government have also stated that they will take account of the risk that weapons might be used to commit or facilitate serious acts of violence against women or children.
We have all seen our television screens. The concerns about Israel’s conduct in this military operation are widespread across all parts of this House. Israel has faced serious allegations from bodies including the United Nations and is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the International Criminal Court. I believe that this raises serious questions about Israel’s compliance with the license criteria, which the Government have a duty to assess and address as part of any export process, should that be sought.
I therefore ask the Government for a guarantee that the export criteria will be applied vigorously and robustly to Israel in the light of the conduct of the conflict in Gaza. Labour supports our defence industry, but we also want it to be subject to vigorous export controls. Those should apply to Israel as they do to any other country. Those export controls must be vigorously applied, particularly in the light of the conflict in Gaza, about which all of us have such grave and profound concerns.
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
It is a pleasure to serve under you this afternoon, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) for bringing the debate to this Chamber. I also thank other Members for their contributions. I will respond to as many of their points as I can in the time available.
It may be helpful first to outline the Government’s approach to this issue. I think we have all been deeply moved by the scenes we have seen from Israel and Gaza over the past nine weeks or so. At the same time, we must not forget how this conflict started. To do so would be a great injustice to the 1,200 victims of the Hamas terrorist attack on 7 October. It was a massacre that rightly appalled the world. Barbarism, brutality and inhumanity are not words that we should use lightly but, as more detail and witness accounts of the events of that day emerge, it is increasingly clear that they are apt descriptors of Hamas’s wicked acts.
Terrorism of this magnitude must be defeated. Israel has a clear right to defend itself, while of course complying with international law. None the less, it is only right that we continue to engage with Israel to ensure that its campaign is targeted against Hamas combatants and military infrastructure. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary stand alongside the international community in calling on Israel to ensure that its actions in defence are necessary and proportionate.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Minister will have heard hon. Members detail the horrors rained down upon Gaza in the past few weeks, but can he answer this: how many of the people who have been killed in Gaza were killed by arms supplied by Britain and how many of the tens of thousands of bombs that have rained down on Gaza were supplied by Britain or dropped from planes with parts provided by Britain? If the Minister says that he cannot answer those questions, that itself surely reveals why we need to suspend arms sales to Israel.
Greg Hands
It is not for me as a Minister in the Department for Business and Trade to give a commentary on deaths or destruction, up-to-date figures on Gaza or those kind of things. That is rightly a matter for the Foreign Office. I think that Foreign Office questions was today, which is when the hon. Member could have availed himself of the opportunity to ask exactly those questions.
We urge all parties to ensure that aid continues to enter Gaza, to end settler violence and to work with international bodies such as the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Richard Foord
The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) has asked about the number of deaths that can be linked to UK arms sales. Does the fact that there is not a Minister who can talk to this subject, which concerns four Departments, point to the fact that the Committees on Arms Export Controls are not functioning as they should?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Member for that; I heard his point earlier about the Committees. Of course, the Government strongly supports good parliamentary scrutiny of our defence export systems. However, my understanding is that, since the machinery of government change back in February, it has not been possible for the Committees to meet since, I think, March. That, and the organisation of the scrutiny of the Government, is most principally a matter for Parliament. The Government stand strongly in support of the scrutiny of defence exports. We have always been supportive of there being such a regime.
Greg Hands
I am going to make a little progress.
We heard points about the situation on the ground from the hon. Members for Coventry South, for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali), for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), and many others. The Foreign Secretary has been clear that Israel’s actions must comply with international humanitarian law and that it must take every step possible to minimise harm towards civilians.
Zarah Sultana
The Minister referenced the Government repeatedly saying that Israel must conform to international law. What assessment have the Government made of Israel’s compliance and conformity with international law? Has any assessment been made? In light of Israel’s actions, which consist of crimes against humanity, and which are not consistent with our arms export criteria, what will the Government do? These things are not matching up.
Greg Hands
Obviously we are monitoring the situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories very closely and we will take any action that the Government consider appropriate as the situation develops. The hon. Lady mentioned the Export Control Joint Unit. The ECJU has in place an established process for responding, at pace, to changing conditions in a country where the UK has previously granted export licences and where those licences remain extant. That situation is under constant review. The fact remains, however, that Hamas could end this conflict today, stopping the suffering of everybody, including the Palestinian people whom it continues to endanger.
I will now explore some of the points raised in this debate in greater depth. First, it is correct that the UK’s defence businesses have a trading relationship with Israel. I welcome the official Opposition’s support for that, for our defence contractors and for our defence exports industry—the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) rightly pointed that out, and I think that was a helpful development from the current generation of Labour Front Benchers. We should, however, put that trading relationship in perspective. In fact, our military exports to Israel are relatively small, representing just 0.02% of Israel’s military imports overall. The £42 million figure, quoted by the hon. Member for Coventry South and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), was released by the Secretary of State for Defence. We stand by that figure; it is from 114 standard individual licences, and the total, accumulated from those licences, is indeed £42 million.
As Members may be aware, a company wanting to export military or dual-use goods must apply for a licence from the Government. The applications for those licences are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the strategic export licensing criteria—a system that is among the most rigorous and transparent in the world, and which provides a thorough risk assessment—
Several hon. Members rose—
Greg Hands
I am going to make a bit more progress. I have a lot of points to respond to.
The right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) is no longer in his seat, but you can see that work in practice. It is a searchable database, with data being released every quarter. The UK is actually at the forefront of providing transparency in our defence export and dual-use licences. These reflect—
Several hon. Members rose—
Greg Hands
I am going to make some more progress.
Those reflect, among other things, the UK’s obligations under international law and the potential for the goods to be used to commit violations of international humanitarian law. The final decision on a licence lies with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, who takes advice from officials in the ECJU. The ECJU is a combined unit—it has already been referred to. It is made up of subject matter experts and officials from the Department for Business and Trade, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence. It examines every application in great detail. The process requires the examination of a range of factors, including the political and security conditions in the destination country and the nature of the equipment to be exported. The ECJU comes to its conclusion by consulting both its UK experts and those in overseas posts.
Several hon. Members rose—
Greg Hands
I am going to make a bit more progress to respond to some of the points that have been made.
The ECJU also takes into account reports from non-governmental organisations, the media and others.
I must point out that the Government take the principles of responsible export control, which are set out in the strategic export licensing criteria, incredibly seriously. We can, and do, respond quickly and flexibly to change our fluid international circumstances, with all licences kept under careful and continual review as a standard.
Apsana Begum
I thank the Minister for giving way. The Government set their own precedent for pausing export licences in response to reports that the criteria might have been breached. In 2019, the Foreign Secretary did that; they suspended arms exports to NATO-allied Turkey following its invasion of Syria. Why can this Government not do the same now?
Greg Hands
The hon. Lady raises the exact point I am coming on to, which is that the system is designed so that a change in circumstances, with a proper assessment, can lead to a change in policy. She mentioned Turkey, but it has also happened in relation to Russia, Burma, Afghanistan and other countries. That is exactly why the policy is in place. We must be able to respond quickly and flexibly to changing circumstances.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
My right hon. Friend makes a good point that Hamas could solve this by removing themselves from their disastrous control of Gaza. However, does he agree that if there are war crimes on any scale, arms sales should cease immediately and there should be a full and immediate ceasefire?
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Of course, we have set out in the criteria for the licences what the UK Government policy and approach would be. If he has information in that regard, I am sure he will share that with the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence and us at DBT, and we would be happy to have a look at it. We take our obligations in this space exceptionally seriously. As I have shown before, we have acted to change policy in relation to changing circumstances on the ground.
I will move forward to deal with some of the points raised in the debate. I should add that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office advises DBT on the situation in-country and the risks posed with respect to the UK’s export control responsibility.
Greg Hands
No; I will respond to the points already raised.
DBT then decides whether to amend, suspend or revoke any relevant licence, or to refuse new applications for licences. The private Member’s Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Coventry South, if I have understood it correctly, seeks to do exactly that, but it can already happen. I would also say in response to the point raised by the hon. Lady that the Foreign Secretary announced the doubling of aid from £30 million to £60 million, which is a tripling overall. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) made a strong defence of Israel’s right to self-defence and our wider co-operation with Israel. He and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked me to restate our commitment to Israel, which I do.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) had some praise for Lord Cameron. We have all performed some gymnastics over the years, but it was good to hear that praise from him. I have not personally seen the letter that he referred to, but our officials in the ECJU and the relevant Ministers engage with those groups all the time. In answer to the suggestion made by him and the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), we continue to monitor the situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories very closely, and will take any action that we consider appropriate.
John McDonnell
This is a simple request. There are specific questions in that letter from War on Want and the other agencies. Could the Minister write to us on the detail of the Government’s responses?
Greg Hands
I am happy to find that letter and see whether there has been a response. As a matter of course, we at DBT respond to letters from non-governmental organisations. I will find out whether a response has already been sent. [Interruption.] If it is appropriate; I am not sure whether it was private correspondence. I might have to find the original letter, but I will make sure that it is responded to.
The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) rightly highlighted the suffering of the civilian populations in Gaza, which is of course under Hamas control. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) raised a point about re-establishing the Committees; I think I have already answered that. He claimed that there were some tough Liberal Democrat policies in this space, but when the Liberal Democrats ran this Department for five years in the coalition, I do not recall those tough policies actually being implemented.
Greg Hands
No; I am going to finish. I have already taken an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for East Lothian asked a question about medical supplies. As I understand it, those are defibrillators and boxes for blood supplies—pure medical supplies—to Israel, but he is welcome to ask further questions if he needs more detail on that. To respond to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, our position is to be supportive of Israel, not due to defence exports—which, as I have pointed out, are a small quantity from this country—but due to our support for Israel’s right to self-defend.
Finally, in the position of the hon. Member for Caerphilly, I did not detect any real difference from mine, so I welcome the official Opposition’s support for the UK defence industry. He said it is world leading, and I agree; he asked that we apply export criteria vigorously and robustly, and that is exactly what we do.
Finally, let me end by saying that our hearts go out to everybody affected by the conflict in Israel and Gaza.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Welsh Devolution
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Welsh devolution.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Christopher. This is a vital topic that impacts the lives of not only my constituents in Delyn, but all the 1.3 million or so people of Wales.
In May 1999, the Secretary of State for Wales, Ron Davies, explained:
“Devolution is a process. It is not an event and neither is it a journey with a fixed end-point. The devolution process is enabling us to make our own decisions and set our own priorities, that is the important point. We test our constitution with experience and we do that in a pragmatic and not an ideologically driven way.”
There are several elements to that remark, and I want to break them down individually. Mr Davies said that devolution is a process and not an event, which seems like a reasonable point of view. It would be beneficial to take an iterative approach to such constitutional change—to test what works and what does not. The wording seems to be similar to saying that devolution is a bit of an experiment—several smaller processes that go together to produce an outcome. The difference, though, is that with an experiment, someone bothers to look at the results. With devolution, there has not been any examination of whether it is working well or badly, and nobody seems to care either way—“devolve and forget” at its worst.
The Westminster Government have a good story to tell: “If you think it is bad here, just look at how much worse it is in Wales.” The Welsh Government have their pantomime villain to blame: “It is all Westminster’s fault, because they continually underfund Wales.” Like, I am sure, all my constituents, I regularly tune into First Minister’s questions in the Senedd—I never miss it. It is a much more serene and courteous affair than Prime Minister’s questions here, but I fail to recall a single time that the First Minister has said that they got anything wrong or made any mistakes. If there is any hint of anything not going well in Wales, it is immediately the fault of Westminster. Both sides have their pre-prepared scapegoats to help them win political arguments, and it is always the people of Wales who suffer.
Mr Davies said that devolution
“is enabling us to make our own decisions and set our own priorities, that is the important point.”
I could not possibly have any more contempt for that statement than I do. It is not the important point. The only important point is the outcome of decisions: how do decisions that are made impact and affect the lives of the people of Wales? Where they are made and who makes them is absolutely irrelevant, as long as they are the right ones.
For the Secretary of State for Wales to say something like
“enabling us to make our own decisions”
immediately separates us and encourages division in British society. Who is this “us” who will be able to “make our own decisions”? It is surely not the people of Wales, because only 25% of us voted to have a Welsh Assembly in the first place. Here we are, almost 25 years on from its establishment, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Westminster or Cardiff Governments have done any reflective analysis whatsoever as to whether devolution has been positive or negative.
Finally, the part of Mr Davies’s comment that I completely agree with:
“We test our constitution with experience and we do that in a pragmatic and not an ideologically driven way.”
I agree 100%, so where is that test? Why is nobody doing it? What does “pragmatic” and “not… ideologically driven” mean? The common-sense reading of that statement is that it means exactly the opposite of its previous comment about the geographical location of the decision maker being the important point. The statement is a complete lesson in political contradiction—to please both sides. On one hand, he invokes the idealism of having decisions made closer to home regardless of the outcome, and on the other he promotes a pragmatic examination of the process, which must not be steered by ideology.
Wales is a small but proud country with a unique identity. It has an unusual degree of political continuity. It ought to have been able to develop and introduce unique policies in Wales that were just not possible prior to devolution, but the record shows that it has failed to have an impact on the lives of our constituents. It is not good enough to keep blaming Whitehall after 25 years. In the time that we have had devolution, Wales has fallen behind the rest of the Union in nearly all its devolved policy areas and has continuously fallen short on UK-wide priorities.
Devolution in Wales has not resulted, as proponents had hoped, in a new form of politics. Far from reinvigorating democracy, voters are just underwhelmed by it. Well, that is not quite right: it has brought about a new form of politics, but sadly it has been the politics of division, blame and mockery. The Welsh Government blame everything on Westminster so they have a ready excuse for never having to fix anything; the Westminster Government say, “Well, it could be worse: look at Labour in Wales,” making us the laughing stock of these British Isles. The new politics we were promised 25 years ago has sadly morphed into a horrific parody of itself.
We were promised increased democratic representation. The Assembly was established on a 50.2% turnout of the people of Wales, with an outcome of 50.3% in favour. From a situation where 25.3% of the people of Wales voted in favour of establishing it, Wales was then thrust into a project of seismic proportions that would change the constitutional make-up of the UK irrevocably. Since 1998, the election turnout of the Welsh Assembly, which was subsequently renamed the Senedd at great yet pointless expense, has continuously declined, reaching as low as 38.2% and never exceeding 46%. Those woeful figures only go to prove that voters have become apathetic and disengaged with the Welsh Government. Turnout in Wales at general elections exceeds 70% every time.
The cost of the Senedd in 2021-22 was £63 million, with proposals to increase Senedd Members from 60 to 96, taking an already over-inflated cost up by another third—another £13 million—giving even less value for money for the people of Wales time and again. Earlier this year, a report said that the buildings of the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board in north Wales were only 62% operationally safe, with some £350 million needed just to bring the existing structures up to scratch, without talking about any new ones. Unsurprisingly, the health board has once again been placed in special measures, which are special in name only as that has been the case for the past eight years, with no noticeable improvement for the long-suffering people of north Wales. Had we not been paying money for the devolved Administration for the past 25 years, we could have ensured that every hospital across the whole of Wales was properly maintained and not falling down around the ears of our dedicated staff.
Routinely, in this Parliament, Labour MPs attack the Government on a range of perceived issues—rightly so; that is their duty as the Opposition. However, as we know, Labour has been front and centre in Wales since 1999 and failing since 1999. Since the advent of devolution, Welsh Labour has been virtually unopposed in government. Never winning an outright majority, it relies heavily on the support of Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats, who are both seemingly as reluctant as Labour to accept their part in this mismanagement on a colossal scale. On a visit to Llandudno last year, the Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition in this place, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), said,
“a Welsh Labour government is the living proof of what Labour in power looks like. How things can be done differently and better… a blueprint for what Labour could do across the UK”—
Lord help the UK.
What does Labour have to show for almost a quarter of a century in power as a blueprint for the rest of the country? Let me examine some of the areas of life in Wales that have been devolved and how they have developed and progressed over the period of devolution. First, let us look at health, at the NHS. As we know, the Labour party in this Parliament relies heavily on scaremongering and unfounded soundbites—“Only Labour can save the NHS” and “The Tories are going to privatise everything”—while going out of its way to ignore the scale of the crisis in Wales. It points out everything that is wrong in England but never does anything to fix even the worst issues in Wales. I wish that the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), the Labour shadow Health Secretary, who says that his party would fix everything that is broken in NHS England, would pop down the M4 and tell his secrets to the Welsh Government’s Minister for Health, who makes blunder after blunder and seems powerless to make any positive, lasting change.
In Wales, health boards are all in special measures. As I mentioned, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, which serves my Delyn constituency in north Wales, has been in that state for eight years, except for a conveniently short period just before the last Senedd election. It was brought out of special measures in the run-up to that campaigning period, despite there having been no actual changes. Interestingly, it was put back into special measures just after the election. That is just a coincidence, I am sure—an administrative mix-up.
The Labour rhetoric about poor funding of the NHS hits closer to home than Labour would ever care to admit. Despite no modern-day Conservative Government ever having cut NHS funding, Welsh Labour cut it in 2015. The King’s Fund expertly demonstrated that by reporting that under the Conservatives, the NHS has had a budget increase of 39% in real terms since 2010, with planned spending for the Department of Health and Social Care in England at more than £180 billion.
The NHS in Wales is failing. Wales had a higher covid death rate than England. Once again, there is a public inquiry in London to look for lessons learned, or, as it turns out, for the media to be able to allocate blame and denounce politicians. Either way, there is no scrutiny at all in Wales: no inquiry and no accountability, despite a worse outcome.
Moving on from health, Wales has the lowest-achieving education system in the entire UK and is among the worst in Europe. Just last week, we had the PISA—programme for international student assessment—testing results for science, maths and literacy. In science, England scored 503 and Wales scored 473, against an OECD average of 485. In maths, England scored 492 and Wales scored 466, against an average of 472. In literacy, England was at 496 and Wales was at 466, against the average of 476.
One pupil who gave comments to BBC Wales said:
“Some parts of it were tricky, but some of it was interesting…It’s like numeracy. So just using that information we know and using it in real life scenarios, which we don’t normally do in lessons that much.”
Another pupil said:
“I think it helps a lot when we get into the real world and actually have to use the skills that we did in the Pisa test to see where we’ll be at when we have to do that in real life”.
Those quotes from students interviewed by the BBC confirm their resounding opinion that their education is giving them knowledge, but never putting them in any real-life situations where they need to apply it. If we are not teaching them usable skills, what is the point of teaching them at all? We need to teach students the relevance of the knowledge and how it fits in with their lives. The pupils have confirmed that we are not doing that in Wales, so it is no wonder that our children are left behind compared with the rest of the UK.
In every single area of the curriculum, England was above average and had the highest scores in the UK. Wales was below average and had the lowest scores in the UK. The First Minister failing to do his sums properly when questioned about those numbers in the Senedd chamber last week was the height of irony. We are letting down the children of Wales. It is not just the Welsh Government any more, but the UK Government who say, “It’s nothing to do with us—it’s devolved.” That is just not good enough. We are all part of the United Kingdom.
Housing is an issue that is immensely important to my constituents and across Wales. As recently as the 2019 general election, the then leader of the Labour party and the official Opposition to the Government pledged 100,000 new council houses every year in England. That sounds great, but we must remember that the Welsh Government, under Labour management, released data detailing a meagre 57 builds by local authorities in that same year. Where are all the houses that the Leader of the Opposition pledged would happen under Labour? This is a devolved area and it has every opportunity to build them in Wales, but they never seem to materialise.
As discussions are being had by a noisy minority in support of more devolution and the ludicrous notion of independence for Wales, we must all be bold enough to look at these failures and ensure, above all else, that Wales is not just handed powers by the UK Parliament without proper scrutiny from this House. That is not to talk down Wales, as I will now doubtless be accused of doing. It is a harsh reality of the situation. Wales is subsidised by England to the tune of approximately £18 billion a year.
The total tax revenue in Wales is exceeded by far by the amount of spending. The difference comes from the UK Government, quite rightly, as we are firmly and comfortably part of the UK. Where do those shouters for independence think they are going to get the money to pay for everything? None of the public services in Wales work already. Where will the funds come from for Wales to have its own courts, police, emergency services, welfare system, state pension and defence infrastructure—everything that an independent state would need? It is completely pie in the sky.
This is the focal point of what I want to say. I have been told a number of things in the past couple of years to try to persuade me of why I am wrong, and I will touch on them briefly. First, I am told by colleagues, who may or may not be in the room, that devolution is not the problem; it is Labour. My response is, yes, but all it does is compound the problem with its incompetence. It has not necessarily created the problem in the first place. The situation would not be any better with the Welsh Conservatives in charge, not because they are also incompetent—although I have seen nothing to make me think that would be a false conclusion—but because the powers that the Senedd has mean that it will never be able to do what needs to be done. For example, the UK Government announced 40 new hospitals. Whether those 40 hospitals will ever exist or come into being is by the by, but the point is that, even in optimal circumstances, Wales would never be able to embark on such a significant capital project because it will never have the funds to do that.
The UK Government have significantly more ability to borrow than the Welsh Government do. Despite the funding being distributed by the Barnett formula—a very poor way to calculate funding allocations—Wales will simply never have sufficient capital to engage in such a wide-ranging project. It does not even have the funds to repair the existing buildings, as I mentioned.
Some people use that as a good reason to devolve more powers so that Wales has those options, but we would get to a point where there are more devolved powers than reserved. At that point, we might just as well have full independence for Wales. I will say controversially on the record that I believe that full independence would be preferable to the current situation. More importantly, full independence is impossible due to the £18 billion a year that would be missing from the Welsh coffers. Bearing in mind that UK national debt is currently £2.5 trillion, presumably Wales would immediately start with 5% of that. So it would be £125 billion in the red on day one, with an extra £18 billion to find every year, just to stand still, from a faltering economy with low average earnings, and a population that cannot be squeezed any tighter. Independence is a fiscal impossibility.
Given that full movement one way or the other is preferable to the current situation, and independence is impossible, the only logical solution is to remove devolution altogether and get back to a single Government for England and Wales. Wherever participants in this debate sit on the political spectrum, outcomes should be their priority. What makes the lives of the people in Wales better? The people of Delyn could not care less about idealism, political nonsense and the shenanigans in this place. They do care about being able to put food on the table, jobs and opportunities, providing their children with a better start in life and relying on a health service to help them in their most difficult times.
Any time I talk about this on the record I get lambasted by the press, including certain journalists in Wales. One in particular said that I was doing it in a desperate and hopefully vain attempt to revive my career—God forbid. He wrote a long article attacking me personally. As the great woman once said:
“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”
People say I am anti-Welsh. Nothing of the sort: dim byd o’r fath o gwbl. I am proud to be Welsh and to speak the language. It is because of that pride that I make these points, not from an anti-Wales point of view, but because the outcomes of devolution have led me unequivocally to conclude that it does not work, has not worked and cannot work.
My Welsh pride is such that I am brave enough to stand up in the face of the people who attack me and my patriotism and say, “No”. I stand here and say these things with the knowledge that there are many colleagues in this House of Commons who agree with every word I say on the matter privately, but who are hesitant to speak out against the stated policy of their party. That is not to say that I am any more courageous than they are—just that I have a bit less to lose than they do at the current time.
For a journalist who I have never spoken a word to in my life to draw judgments on my intent and my reasons for making the statements that I make is a sad indictment of a news media who have decided that it is not their job any longer to report the news, but somehow to interpret and speculate as to a rationale behind it, without even bothering to ask. It was notable that in his 1,100-word rant about me, there was not a single counter to any of the points that I made. There was not a single reference to the beneficial outcome of devolution and the intrinsic value that it has brought to the people of Wales, and not a single reference to the litany of successes that devolution has inspired, or the wonderful outcomes that the people of Wales have been able to enjoy that would not otherwise have been possible. There was nothing positive to say about devolution at all—just attacks on me.
That is all right. I am immensely proud of my Welshness, but I would be infinitely more proud if I could say “I’m from Wales”, and other people said “You’ve got great educational results”, or “Gosh, you’ve really transformed your NHS”, or “Your incomes are skyrocketing across Wales.” None of those things have happened in the last 25 years; what has happened has been the clear degeneration to rack and ruin in my fantastic country.
It does not need to be this way; we do not have to be the poor relation any more. We should roll back on devolution. Tomorrow, just after Prime Minister’s questions, I shall present a Bill to the House to allow for a referendum to do just that. I hope that in her response, the Minister will not just confirm that devolution is the policy of the Government. We all know that, and we all know that Wales has to put up with it only because it was brought in to satisfy our cousins north of the border. I would like the Minister to tell me why the Government support devolution in Wales. What are the positive outcomes? What benefits have there been that otherwise would not have been possible? What has come out of Cardiff Bay to benefit the people of Wales and offset the hundreds of millions of pounds that it has cost us over the years?
In 2014, the people of Scotland got to have their say once again to confirm the outcome of the 1997 referendum. In 2016, the people of the UK got to have their say once again on membership of the EU following the previous vote 40 years earlier. Why, then, can the people of Wales not have their say on whether to retain the institution that it never wanted in the first place?
Some people say, “There was another referendum in Wales in 2011”, and yes, there was. That question was:
“Do you want the Assembly now to be able to make laws”
on the matters it has jurisdiction for? Of course people did—what a silly question that was. There was a 35% turnout for a 63% yes vote—another win for 22% of the population of Wales. But the question was fundamentally different and was not one that meant a great deal to the people of Wales, who reasonably assumed that the Assembly already had the powers to make laws in devolved areas. I am proposing a simple and straightforward yes or no—keep it or do not keep it.
I hope the Minister will confirm that there are plans to let the people of Wales have their say, not on whether there should be enhanced powers or more devolution, but on whether devolution should be allowed to carry on at all, so that we can redirect the money wasted on a failed institution into providing better services and better outcomes for the people of Wales.
Ron Davies said:
“Devolution is a process…not an event”.
The process has failed to produce any measurable benefit; the process should be discontinued. The people of Wales should be allowed to choose.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Fay Jones)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Roberts) on securing this debate on a cause that he has discussed many times in the House. It is a pleasure to speak in my first Westminster Hall debate in my role as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales. I am very privileged to work alongside the Secretary of State for Wales and the Prime Minister in championing economic growth and creating high-quality jobs across Wales. In the limited time available, I will try to draw Members’ attention to the progress that the UK Conservative Government have made so far in securing the investment, opportunity and growth that Wales needs. That progress demonstrates the many benefits of the Union to the people of Wales.
I will start with four towns funds, in Merthyr Tydfil, Cwmbran, Wrexham and Barry. We have city and regional growth deals across the length and breadth of the country, £1 billion for the electrification of the north Wales main line, and specific Government investment in all 22 local authorities in Wales. The Government are backing Welsh business and the economy and delivering a better, brighter future for our communities.
The hon. Gentleman’s speech focused instead on constitutional issues and demonstrated his firmly held belief about the future of Welsh devolution. It will not surprise him—I know he will disagree with this—that I am bound to say that his argument is not with the Welsh Parliament, or with devolution, but with Welsh Labour. I am sorry that not one of the 22 Welsh Labour Members felt able to come to this Chamber this afternoon to defend Labour’s record in Wales—unless the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) would like to have a go.
I know that this will disappoint the hon. Member for Delyn, but let me be clear that this Government are firmly committed to devolution. I am proud that successive Conservative Governments have strengthened devolution in Wales, from delivering a referendum on full lawmaking powers to delivering two Wales Acts, devolving tax and borrowing powers and placing Welsh devolution on a firm footing with the reserved powers model. We have seen the National Assembly for Wales transform into the Welsh Parliament.
I believe that now is the time to move on from constitutional debates and that we should instead focus on growing and levelling up our economy, creating jobs and supporting people with the cost of living, because these are the priorities of the people of Wales—not extra devolution to the Senedd and certainly not creating more Senedd Members, which would cost an extortionate amount of money. It is imperative that the UK Government makes the most of devolution, and close collaboration between the UK Government and the Welsh Government is absolutely vital.
Our joint work to deliver two investment zones and two freeports in Wales will help to grow the Welsh economy and therefore the UK economy by attracting new businesses, jobs and investment.
Fay Jones
I have very limited time and the hon. Gentleman treated us to a 23-minute speech, so if he will forgive me, I will press on.
Collaboration with local authorities in Wales is also key, as has been proven through the growing success of the Welsh city and growth deals, which are delivering real results for regional economies. But in recognising the positives of devolution for Wales and the opportunities that arise from having two Governments, it would be remiss of me not to recognise, as we heard the hon. Gentleman so eloquently explain, that there are legitimate and significant concerns in Wales about the performance of public services and the decisions being made by the Welsh Labour Government.
As the hon. Gentleman outlined, the most recent PISA results show that Welsh scores in maths, reading and science tests continue to be the lowest of the United—
Mr Lord
I agree with the Minister that our UK Government have done fantastic things for Wales in recent times, and I agree with her and the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Roberts) in relation to the devastating takedown of the Welsh Labour Administration, who have failed the people of Wales over such a long period. Can I ask the Minister for at least an assurance that we will not give further powers to a Welsh Administration until there is proven public support for that and until the Administration has perhaps proven themselves worthy of the powers that they already have?
Fay Jones
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance: now is not the time to talk about providing more powers. Now is the time to talk about generating economic growth and opportunity in Wales—something that the Welsh Labour Government seem allergic to.
Rather than improving failing devolved public services, the Welsh Government’s firm focus is on issues that do not reflect the priorities of people in Wales, whether it is spending vast amounts of money to pay for more politicians in Cardiff Bay, implementing highly unpopular policies, such as the disastrous tourism tax or the 20 mph speed limit that cost £33 million, or refusing to build new roads—not forgetting that they wasted £157 million on the M4 relief road, which they then scrapped, before wasting a further £4 million on buying Gilestone Farm, which is in my constituency. As I can see that the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries is here this afternoon, I just point out the enormous disparity between the fortunes of farmers in England and those of farmers in my constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire.
I understand and share many of the frustrations that people in Wales have about the Welsh Government’s direction of travel. However, people in Wales support devolution, as they have made clear in two referenda, and I do not believe that the answer to their concerns is to reverse devolution. Instead, if people are unhappy with the performance of the Welsh Government, I encourage them to make their voices heard through the ballot box at the next Senedd election.
The hon. Member for Delyn remarked that, over the years, the Senedd has become a political football between the two Governments, and he is right to point that out. However, the way to test that is to let someone else take responsibility. If a car is heading in the wrong direction, we do not scrap the vehicle and revert to walking, although I believe that is what the First Minister would rather people did. We find a better driver, we find someone with a map, we find somebody who knows what they are doing, and I submit that that is the Welsh Conservative party.
Question put and agreed to.
Public Sector Food Procurement
(4 months, 4 weeks 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
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered public sector food procurement and healthy eating.
Before I get under way, I thank the Backbench Business Committee both for its allocation of this debate and indeed its reallocation of this debate when we were put off track the other day due to votes.
We are locked into a seemingly never-ending debate when it comes to food and health. Since 1992, there have been 14 obesity strategies piled high with hundreds of policies. All of them have identified various aspects of cause and concern, while offering up positions that attempt to address the stark reality that we are now the third fattest country in the G7. Of course, a common thread runs throughout all these strategies: the simple fact that the food we eat matters.
Good, high-quality, well-produced food is unsurprisingly better for us than cheap, ultra-processed, quickly produced food. Do not take my word for it; look at the countless studies that have shown students’ concentration and behaviour improving when served better-quality food in their cafeterias. Look at the improvement to patient health and recovery times when served with from-scratch, cooked food using high-quality ingredients. In fact, look at every study conducted by the NHS, local authority or think-tank. Pick out any one of the 14 obesity studies since 1992, and we will find direct evidence linking good-quality food to improved health and outcomes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing this debate. It is a massive issue in my constituency, as it is indeed across the whole of the United Kingdom. In 2012, 31% of children were overweight or obese. Research demonstrates that obese children are more at risk of being overweight as adults and of developing a range of related health conditions. Does he agree that there must be a happy medium to ensure not only that meals made in schools are nutritious and healthy, but that students will eat and enjoy the food that is in front of them?
Anthony Mangnall
The hon. Gentleman always makes salient points in Westminster Hall debates. He is absolutely right to talk about schools, education and how we can start talking about food, where it comes from and its nutritional value, and also starting a relationship in places of education to ensure that we do not lose that link with our food. That is one of the sure-fire ways of addressing obesity and ensuring that we have better health as a result of the food we eat. It also allows us to inject some of the points around localism and supporting local producers, which I will come on to later.
The purpose of this debate is not for me to stand here and tell people what they can and cannot eat—after all, I do implicitly believe in the freedom of choice. However, it is for me to say that when taxpayers’ money is spent on food procurement, we can and should be improving what we buy, how we produce it, as well as how we serve it. Change is rarely as simple as one might want. However, my proposal for change is a simple one: the UK Government, working with local authorities, need to set targets to improve the public procurement process to ensure that local, sustainable, higher-quality, healthier food that comes from organic, regenerative or family-run farms and fisheries is served in our schools, hospitals, care homes, military, prisons and Government offices. I think that covers nearly every farming organisation in the country and should not leave anyone out.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Member’s Financial Interests as chairman of the Country Food Trust. My hon. Friend has made some extremely good points. Is it not the case, given that the Government are embarking on one of the most expensive deer-feeding programmes ever invented—in other words, planting trees to be eaten by 2.5 million deer a year—in order to get the culling effort up to the level of 750,000 where it needs to be, that that high-protein, low-fat meat should be used in public sector kitchens, as it is one of the healthiest meats available in the United Kingdom?
Anthony Mangnall
I did not expect the debate to be going in that direction, but I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. How can we get game meat into our schools and places of education? How can we find a better link to that and a better understanding of the food that is in abundance across this country? I think that is a perfectly reasonable and sensible point.
My proposal, as I said, is a simple concept but a complex challenge. We spend £2.4 billion annually on public sector food procurement and catering, and there is the opportunity to support local producers, improve food quality and diets, and safeguard the environment, all of which can be achieved by setting national standards. As I have found over the last four years, half the battle in this place is persuading others, including the Government, that a point of view or argument is the right one—and even when we are proven right, it may not count for much.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Food security and the production of high-standard, locally produced food are vital. In 2021, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee produced a report on public sector food procurement. It highlighted the loophole in Government buying standards for food and catering that allows public sector bodies to purchase food that does not meet our UK legal standards in food production or animal welfare on the basis of cost.
Does my hon. Friend agree that we should close that inconsistent loophole as soon as we can, so that we can become a beacon to the rest of the world on food production and animal welfare standards? In so doing, we would be backing our fantastic British farmers and food producers, who produce food to the highest animal welfare and environmental standards.
Anthony Mangnall
I congratulate my hon. Friend on all his work as a member of the EFRA Committee, in which he brings his expertise both as a veterinarian and as a representative of a rural constituency with many farmers. He is absolutely right that we must close those loopholes. We must take the recommendations in the EFRA Committee report, to which I will refer later. I will be happy to follow through with anything he needs to strengthen his arm on that point.
The Government already accept the premise of what I am calling for. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation on possible changes to the public sector food and catering policy stated:
“Government is adopting an ambitious and transformational approach to public sector food and catering. We are determined to use public sector purchasing power to ensure positive change in the food system. Our vision is that public sector food and catering is an exemplar to wider society in delivering positive health, animal welfare, environmental and socio-economic impacts.”
That is exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). The consultation ran from June 2022 to September 2022, and there were hundreds of submissions from worthwhile national organisations. Unfortunately, the Government have yet to respond to their consultation. Will the Minister say when we are likely to see the findings of the consultation and any recommendations, so that we can recognise the opportunity to see those targets and ambitions met?
To make those changes and recognise the ambitions stated in the consultation, the procurement process has to be widened to encourage and incentivise small businesses to engage with the system. Whether it be a national or a local authority contract, it is time consuming, risky and costly for small farms, fisheries or local food producers to submit a bid. That clearly needs to change. The Procurement Act 2023 reforms the procurement process to make it simpler, faster, more transparent and less bureaucratic. It is perhaps one of the most boring pieces of legislation that has ever been passed by Parliament, but it is an important one that will make a huge difference to small businesses. With the measures coming into force in October 2024, the Government have rightly made it their ambition to open the market for public contracts to new entrants, especially small and local businesses. The Act is the catalyst for reforming our food procurement system, to ensure healthier, higher-quality food is at the heart of our publicly funded organisations.
When the Act was debated in the Lords, a number of amendments aimed to set national targets, such as ensuring that 50% of purchases must be from the UK or that “locally” would mean within 30 miles of a contracting authority. I understand that those proposals would have contravened many of our World Trade Organisation legal obligations, but there are steps that we can take to develop and improve local purchasing strategies while continuing to adhere to WTO standards. Will the Minister say when the Government will use section 107 of the Procurement Act to introduce secondary legislation to disapply section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988, which
“currently precludes local authorities from awarding public supply or work contracts by supplier location”?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 November 2022; Vol. 825, c. 1641.]
That was stated at the Dispatch Box in the House of Lords by a Minister. Introducing secondary legislation would be welcomed, I presume, by both sides of this House—I see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), nodding—so there is an opportunity to quickly see that reform brought to reality.
The more sceptical might think that this is all wishful thinking, but international comparisons should be made, and some of the successes are remarkable. For instance, in 2001 Denmark introduced an organic action plan aimed at 60% organic procurement in all public kitchens by 2020. Evidence showed an increase in public kitchen procurement of organic food of 24% by 2016. The policy proved so popular that the city of Copenhagen increased the target and achieved it, at 90%, earlier this year. The policy improved not only the health of those using public kitchens, but the understanding of food and nutrition, as well as cooking skills. The Danish agricultural community also found themselves boosted when able to bid for local tenders, with small and medium-sized businesses actively engaging and benefiting from the policy.
Brazil passed a law that requires 30% of the national budget for food served in school meal programmes to be spent on food from family farms, with priority given to those using agroecological methods. Perhaps the most interesting point about that policy is that it has also restricted the purchasing of processed and ultra-processed food with taxpayers’ money. That has had a positive impact on the farming and fishing communities, as well as benefiting schools, hospitals and other publicly funded organisations. In the United States, which we are often quick to deride, states such as California and Massachusetts have put in place frameworks that steer public purchasing towards local sources, with the express purpose of improving the diet, health and nutrition of their citizens. Austria and the Nordic countries also have fantastic examples.
Even in my area of south Devon, in the south-west, we have piloted interesting and innovative schemes such as the dynamic purchasing system to help to facilitate greater buy-in from small and medium-sized enterprises to allow them to take advantage of public tenders—all with the express hope of streamlining the consolidation and delivery of orders from multiple suppliers with an online food store, a local delivery hub and knowledge of local suppliers. Both at home and abroad, there are examples of how the proposals that I have put forward could and should work.
The Government buying standard for food and catering services sets out what public sector organisations should apply when procuring food and catering services. The standards relate to food production, processing, distribution and nutrition. Some of the standards are mandatory; some are best practices. DEFRA is responsible for updating public sector procurement standards, and the Department of Health and Social Care is responsible for the nutrition standards in the GBSF, as it is known.
The “National Food Strategy” report and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report that has already been mentioned on public sector procurement of food rightly consider what needs to be done to update the GBSF: the buying standards should be updated to ensure procurement of healthy and sustainable food; standards should be mandatory across the entire public sector; the monitoring of compliance with the standards should be improved; and supply chains should be opened up to a wider range of businesses. Some of those measures are already under way.
However, it is frequently remarked on that the lack of joined-up thinking between Departments when it comes to food has been the predominant block to action in this space. Reshaping the GBSF to take on board the food strategy recommendations plus improved oversight and strategy, coupled with mandatory targets and enforcement mechanisms, will be the only way in which we can speed along the change that we wish to see in our public sector. Mandatory standards across all sectors of public sector food procurement would not only be a huge vote of support for our food, farming and fishing communities, but necessitate an oversight body to ensure that targets were met and promises delivered.
I have sought to demonstrate that my proposal is not out of kilter with the Government’s ambitions. I have referenced the fact that the Government’s consultation on this topic asked for submissions on the very points and ambitions that I have raised. We wait in hope for its findings. I have provided the international comparisons that show that we can not only be compliant with WTO rules, but ensure that we have strong and robust legislation that meets our own domestic interests. We can do that while adhering to our international commitments.
I will end on the work of the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission, whose excellent work on this topic and so many others has demonstrated the overwhelming positive public appetite—no pun intended —to change the public food procurement system. Specifically, citizens across this country want the Government to improve public sector food procurement and nutrition standards, with 84% of people believing in stronger standards for the food provided in our hospitals and schools.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on his passionate and extremely persuasive speech, but could we go back one step and underline how important it is that our schools get this sort of local, fresh produce? It is during those early years that one gets the tastes and the habits of a lifetime.
Anthony Mangnall
My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. I will take a moment to mention a national organisation called Chefs in Schools, which was started and supported by Henry Dimbleby, who wrote the food strategy report. It is a brilliant organisation that goes to schools across the country, starts that early relationship between students and food and encourages cooking skills to be commonplace in every school. We should be encouraging that, and I know that Chefs in Schools will welcome any MP who wants to hear more about its programmes and whether they could be launched in their schools. I have not spent enough time speaking about schools, but I have made the point that we need to do better on that relationship, in terms of quality and standards. My hon Friend is right to raise the point, and I thank him for doing so.
If this is done correctly, the Government need not commit more money. None of the schemes I mentioned earlier required an uplift in funding; they required a change of approach and attitude to how we were purchasing food, and the schemes, initiatives and platforms in place to allow them to do so. We can boost our support for UK domestic producers across our rural and coastal communities and provide an enormous vote of confidence in our farmers and fishermen. As the Minister is a farmer, I have the utmost confidence in him to deliver in response to my speech. It would benefit farmers right across the country, and we should not lose sight of that. We can uphold food integrity and standards by creating a transparent, competitive, easy marketplace, and we can provide high-quality food that will make all the difference to our places of education, our hospitals, our prisons and our military organisations.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing the debate. I thought I had missed it last week, so I was pleasantly surprised to see it on the Order Paper again.
The hon. Member mentioned the Government consultation on public sector food and catering that closed on 4 September 2022. Almost ever since then, it has become something of an obsession of mine to chase the Government for a response. The last time I asked, in September, I was told it would be out this year—which means by next Tuesday—so I hope the Minister has good news for us today. I gather that the 126 responses were the reason given for it taking so long. That is not that many, so I hope the Minister can tell us how many people are working on looking at those responses. It should not have taken 15 months to come to a conclusion.
One thing that was consulted on was the idea that 50% of food procured should be locally sourced and/or sustainable. When I chaired the all-party parliamentary group on agroecology for sustainable food and farming, we were very keen to look at what France was doing. It showed that it can be done, and in a country full of farmers, they very much welcomed it. I support that. The leader of my party, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), committed us to it when he spoke at the NFU a while ago, so I am keen to hear from the Minister whether that is still in active consideration.
As I said, I used to chair the APPG on agroecology. In that role, I had the pleasure—it was quite a pleasure—of interviewing the then DEFRA Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), on stage at the Oxford Real Farming conference. He went down very well with the audience—this was before the Agriculture Act 2020 came in—because it was the first time, I think, that a serving Conservative Secretary of State had been to the conference. This was more the agroecological end of things than traditional farming. One thing on which he got a good response was committing to more support for county farms, peri-urban farming and local farming in general.
As a Bristol MP, I think there is so much potential. We have gold status as a sustainable food city, but we also have food deserts where people cannot access affordable and healthy food, so the idea that through public sector procurement we could become the customers of things that are being grown in Somerset, in Gloucestershire and nearby—we are surrounded by countryside—to an extent to which we are not at the moment seems so much something that should be at the heart of what we are trying to do. That was followed up when I was on the Bill Committee for the Agriculture Act 2020, when the then Minister confirmed that it was very much something the Government were going to do. Unfortunately, I then had a meeting over Zoom—this was during covid—with his successor, and it just seemed like it had dropped off the table all together.
Will the Minister tell us whether he sees county farms and peri-urban farming playing an important role, and what has happened to the land use framework? There is quite a long list of DEFRA things that seem to have disappeared into the ether, but maybe the Minister has just got a very big in-tray and it is somewhere in there. I hope that part of that land use framework will include earmarking what land could be used for development to support this kind of peri-urban farming approach.
I also want to ask the Minister about the horticultural strategy. We do know that it, at least, has been definitely dropped. The strategy would have promoted the growing and consumption of more fresh fruit and vegetables, which the sector was very much pushing for. It was only after I attended a Food Foundation event and was asked if I knew what had happened to it that I tabled a question and found out that the strategy had actually been dropped. The sector had not even been told. In fact, it had been announced via a written question in the Lords, but the sector had then gone on to have meetings with DEFRA officials—there was at least one roundtable —about the proposal after it had been dropped. We know the pressures that fruit and vegetable growers are under; we know the importance of the strategy. Can the Minister explain why that was dropped? I have read the written answers, but they did not do justice to the question.
Finally, I want to briefly talk about school food standards and food poverty. One in four teachers reported that they have been bringing in food themselves for hungry pupils over the last term, while seven in 10 schools have said they are supplying basic food and hygiene items to children. There is the basic issue of not having access to enough food, but we know there is even more of a problem when we get on to healthy food. I congratulate Henry Dimbleby on his excellent work on this issue. I went to his book launch—I think Chefs in Schools, which does excellent work, provided the catering. We know that school food is not up to the nutritional and sustainability standards that we would like to see. In addition, according to The BMJ, in 2020, just 1.6% of packed lunches met school food standards, so there is also an issue with that.
The Government did say at one point that they were going to review the national school food standards. They told me that in response to questions, but later confirmed in response to other questions that they did not feel the need to do so. I absolutely feel, as we have heard, that the Government need to review those standards. We have a lot more information now on the nutritional impact of certain diets, and something that has been mentioned is the impact on behaviour. There was a very interesting study—going back quite a long time now—in young offenders institutions, which showed that once those teenage boys were taken off junk food, their behaviour changed radically. It seems to me, again, to be a bit of a no-brainer: why would we not seek to change their diets if we know we could basically save them from a lifetime spent in the criminal justice system by just doing something as important as feeding them properly?
Sir Charles Walker
This will be the last intervention I make. The hon. Lady and I may come from different sides of the argument around eating meat and this, that and the other, but I take her point entirely. The fact of the matter is that there are more than 2 million deer in England. To sustain the number at that level, we need to cull 750,000. We are talking of putting this low-fat, high-protein meat into dog food while people are going hungry. Diets make such a difference. We really do need to be imaginative in how we work with schools and public sector organisations to improve people’s diets.
Kerry McCarthy
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point entirely, but he has intervened on me just as I was about to say something about plant-based diets in schools, so it was perhaps not the best timing. I would argue, and I think most people would agree, that plant-based diets are healthy and sustainable, and it would be a good thing if people—children, in particular—ate more vegetables, regardless of whether or not they eat them as a side helping on a plate of meat. They do need to eat more fruit and veg—can we all agree on that?
Kerry McCarthy
Right. According to the national school food standards, one or more portions of veg or salad has to be served as an accompaniment to each meal, and there has to be one or more portions of fruit every day and at least three different fruit and three different veg every week. We can do better than that. There are also requirements for meat and for dairy to be served. We should explore doing what Mayor Eric Adams has done in New York, where plant-based meals are the default option in schools and hospitals. They are not the only option; people can choose to eat meat and fish, but it is just the fall-back option. Uptake of those diets has gone up radically as a result. People have not wilted away and fallen out of their hospital beds due to lack of energy just because they have been eating a few more vegetables. That is worth exploring.
ProVeg UK’s school plates programme works with 55 local authorities and catering companies and is responsible for catering in 6,500 schools. It provides free advice on menus and recipes, and it trains chefs. It says that nearly 12 million meals have been switched to plant-based options since the programme began in 2018. It was actually 4.5 million until 2021, so the uptake has been massive. I am not saying this with an ethical vegan hat on or anything like that; I am just saying that it would be a good way of getting young people to eat more fruit and veg, which would be a good way of supporting fruit and veg growers in this country.
More plant-based meals would help with sustainability, too. I have just returned from the climate change talks at COP, where there were some very interesting discussions. Land use and food systems were meant to be on the agenda at COP for the first time, and I hope that the Minister would support that. At the moment, only 5% of public procurement contracts—across the board, not for just food—require a carbon reduction plan, so I will finish with this question: does the Minister see public sector procurement of food as helping to reduce our carbon footprint?
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for securing this important debate.
Food must form an important part of any credible long-term health proposal, as well as any long-term environmental and geopolitical planning. The hon. Member for Totnes has already mentioned the role the south-west played during the local food hub trials, but many of my constituents feel led up the garden path by this Government’s food and farming strategy.
Somerset had 8,500 people working on farms or in food production in 2021—the highest of any county in the UK. It brought in around £500 million to Somerset’s rural economy. The farms of the south-west are some of the smallest in the UK, and we must recognise that nuance when talking about food supply. Indeed, I live in the Blackmore vale, where my family farm is. It is known as “the vale of the little dairies”, made famous by Thomas Hardy, as some hon. Members may know. We have so many different types of farms, and a supply strategy that may work for a large arable farm is not necessarily applicable to small dairy farms, like the one that I grew up on. I am in Westminster to ensure that farmers’ voices are heard loud and clear—something farmers have recently had to look to a motoring journalist for.
A recent 2022 report from the Food for Life project, which is run by the Soil Association along with other partners, showed that although regional supply companies win about 78% of public food contracts, the food itself is often not local. One in three organisations surveyed did not even know where the food it supplied came from. If the public sector is set up to favour local food and understand the nuances and complications of the industry, our population will be not only food secure, but job secure and health secure. Food for Life and its partners are calling for reforms to the way that food producers and public sector procurers link up. We should make use of ugly fruit and vegetables, and encourage and fund rural hubs like Frome Community Fridge, which gathers and distributes food that would otherwise go to waste. We need to educate public food procurers and consumers on seasonality, and promote fruit and vegetables that grow better here than highly popular but non-native recipe mainstays. We need seasonally produced nutritious food in our public sector institutions. By cutting out food miles, the impact on the environment is lessened, and we all need food in our public sector to be affordable.
The recent programme for international student assessment report reveals that 11% of pupils in the UK miss out on a meal at least once a week; that is above the OECD average. As we have heard today, hungry pupils are less likely to learn. I frequently receive emails from teachers and parents calling for free school meals to be extended. The appetite is clearly there and I hope the Minister will listen. The Liberal Democrats will provide free school meals for every primary school child and every secondary school child living in a universal credit household. Children who eat well learn well, and children who learn how to eat well will eat well for life. We want children growing into educated and informed consumers who champion seasonality, safeguard our precious environment, eat locally and, above all, eat healthily.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is nice to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for securing this debate on public sector food procurement and nutritional standards.
According to Government estimates, the UK public sector spends approximately £2.4 billion a year procuring food and catering services, representing approximately 5.5% of UK food service sector sales. Of the total spend, 29% is in schools. We have just heard about the advocation for nutritional meals in schools. Of course, in Scotland every child between primary 1 and primary 5 can avail themselves of free school meals. Twenty-nine per cent of the total spend is in further and higher educational settings; 25% in hospitals and care homes; 11% in the armed forces; 5% in prisons and 1% in Government offices. The sheer amount of food being purchased by central Government and Government bodies and agencies, and the spend itself, highlight just how important policies that work are for those seeking to procure, but also for taxpayers, workers and, indeed, our planet. UK Government procurement rules are, of course, subject to change, with the Procurement Act 2023 having passed through this place and received Royal Assent late this year. That will replace the current EU law-based regimes that we are working against.
What must be considered in all this, of course, are the decisions made on the cost of food through the procurement process. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding and inequalities. The APPG has found that the cost of infant formula has increased by over 25% in the past two years alone. Just two companies hold 85% of the market share and are thus making high profit margins within that one item alone. The choice to procure a more expensive formula over a cheaper one not only costs our NHS unnecessarily more, but burdens families even further in what is already a relentless cost of living crisis, because people are likely to stay on one brand throughout the course of their child’s feeding. That is why procurement choices are so vital and why I am pleased that the SNP Scottish Government have their own procurement policies; of course, procurement is devolved and we will continue with the strategy that we have implemented. As ever, dialogue between Scottish Ministers and the UK Government will be ongoing—and, I am sure, will be as cordial as ever.
It is vital that food procurement policy represents the need for healthy, nutritional and sustainably sourced food. The Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 was introduced in Holyrood exactly to ensure that the Scottish Government can deliver on their aims of sustainable and healthy food procurement in Scotland. The core aims of the policy include work to ensure that it is the norm for Scots to have a keen interest in their food, knowing where it comes from and what constitutes good food, and valuing it and seeking it out wherever they possibly can; and work to ensure that those who serve and sell food—from schools to hospitals, retailers, restaurants and cafés—are committed to serving and selling good, nutritious, healthy food.
Enormous strides have been made when it comes to Scotland’s relationship with food and its dietary requirement knowledge. As a result of ensuring that everyone in Scotland has ready access to the healthy and nutritious food they need, diseases are in decline, as is the environmental impact of our food consumption. All that is hugely encouraging. World-class Scottish producers, when they produce, strive to be increasingly healthy and environmentally sound, which we know is so important. The 2022 Act underpins a lot of work that is already being done across the Scottish Government to make Scotland a good food nation. That is the foundation on which we will build a healthier country.
Anthony Mangnall
I just wonder, since he is speaking about the high standards that Scotland might have, whether the hon. Member has any comment on the WildFish report about the damage that the Scottish salmon farming sector is doing to the habitats in which the fish are farmed and to the quality of the food that comes out of it.
Steven Bonnar
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Of course, we will always look for sustainability wherever we can. Salmon is worth so much to the UK economy—far less to the Scottish economy. We have had some discussions about highly protected marine areas, so there is some ongoing work there, but I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point.
The Scottish Government is also improving the quality of food purchased on their behalf, with 12% more eggs, 14% more pork and 69% more beef, although there is no more venison, yet—it is too dear, probably—and 7% more milk and cream of UK or Red Tractor standard now, compared with before the pandemic. We have been making really good inroads in Scotland, and we in the SNP would welcome and encourage the UK and the other devolved Governments to follow our example in working to make all the UK’s nations good food nations.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on his characteristic vigour and energy in introducing such an important topic and launching a volley of questions that I am confident the Minister will evade. Let me also thank several people for their assistance in preparing for this debate: James Bielby of the Federation of Wholesale Distributors; Vicki Hird, formerly of Sustain and now of the Wildlife Trusts; and Joss MacDonald from the Food Foundation whose excellent report, “The Broken Plate”, is invaluable.
Given the time constraints, my comments will inevitably be brief, but we know from masses of research, including Henry Dimbleby’s excellent “National Food Strategy”, that the food consumed by the majority of adults and children in the UK does not currently meet the requirements of a nutritious diet. Most adults and children consume in excess of the maximum recommended intakes for sugar, saturated fat and salt, and do not meet the recommendations for fruit and vegetable, fibre or oily fish consumption. Is that an issue for just those individuals? Frankly, I do not think so. It has got to be about system change, and Government procurement is an important lever.
Sadly, I see no evidence that the current Government have a strategic approach to the food system. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and the hon. Member for Totnes mentioned a whole series of pieces of work that we are waiting for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to respond to by the end of the year. I remember that the food security strategy was sneaked out on the last possible day a couple of years ago, so maybe we will have lots of Christmas presents in the offing in a couple of weeks’ time. Those pieces of work include not just the public sector food and catering policy consultation but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East said, the demise of the long-awaited horticultural strategy. There is a widely held consensus that the Government’s national food strategy is inadequate and fails to build on the strengths of the Dimbleby report.
A future Labour Government will take these issues far more seriously. They are much too important to be left to chance, and they deserve a considered and strategic approach. For Labour, food security is national security. For the benefit of the consumer, the producer and society as a whole, we need more seasonal, sustainable and nutritious British-grown food. Instead of encouraging more low-quality imports, a Labour Government will back British farmers to produce more locally grown, healthy food in this country. One of the ways that we will do that is through public procurement. We will ensure that 50% of all food purchased by the public sector is locally produced and sustainable. That will be £1.2 billion of public money spent on quality food that is genuinely better for people’s health—a clear target for every year we are in government.
Anthony Mangnall
The hon. Gentleman has done a dangerous thing: it sounds like he has produced a Labour party policy, which must be the first we have heard in many months. Perhaps he might answer this. He has suggested that Labour will produce food locally and set a national target, but how will it make that compliant with WTO standards? I would also make the point that, although I am happy to have a prod at the Government for what they have and have not done, the landmark piece of legislation that has passed is the Procurement Act 2023, which does all the things we want and which people on both sides of the House have been asking for.
Daniel Zeichner
I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s interventions. He is a touch prickly, and I think he will find that there are hundreds of worthy Labour party policies out there. I am happy to engage in full consultation and dialogue with him on what the future holds. I also have to say that it is not beyond the wit of people to find ways through this; others have done it, and we will do it.
As I said, we are talking about £1.2 billion of public money being spent on quality food that is genuinely better for people’s health—a clear target for every year in government. Fifty per cent is just the minimum—just the start—and we will do everything to go beyond that, so that we can maximise the power of public procurement to drive up standards and fortify food security.
As part of our aim to improve children’s nutritional intake, in particular, and to build a future where children come first, we will introduce fully funded breakfast clubs for every primary school in England—another excellent Labour policy that I commend to the hon. Member for Totnes. Our free breakfast clubs will put money back in parents’ pockets, give every primary child a healthy meal at the start of the day, and be an important first step on the road to building a modern childcare system, enabling parents to work and providing an important spur to economic growth. We will improve children’s diets by finally implementing the 9 pm watershed for junk food advertising. The Government’s own impact assessment found that that policy would lead to children eating nearly 12.5 million fewer calories across the UK.
But that is for the future. Sadly, the situation at the moment is getting worse. The wholesale sector supplying the public sector has been hard hit by rising costs and inflexible budgets. Many in the sector are struggling to fulfil their public sector food contracts, with some servicing them at a loss. The Government response has been frankly woeful. Their announcement to increase the funding rate for universal infant free school meals by 12p per pupil was a belated token acknowledgment of the problem. That increase remains well behind the current rise in food inflation, which for wholesalers is running at 20%, and fails to consider the range of external factors the food and drink industry currently faces.
Soaring costs are putting the public sector food industry under considerable strain, forcing conversations to be had about the realities of fulfilling public sector food contracts. Inevitably, the quality and quantity of the food being served to young and vulnerable people are being adversely impacted. Public sector caterers are struggling to meet food standards and being forced to reduce portion sizes and to use less UK-grown produce, directly contrary to the Government’s stated aims. The quality of the food used to service public sector contracts will continue to decline in order to mitigate rising costs if the Government do not take action. The impact of food inflation has already resulted in pupils being forced to accept smaller lunches with a lower nutritional value. In some cases, schools have opted to offer only cold packed lunches because of the cost of energy. I am sure we will remember the scenes during the covid crisis when some of the meals on offer were shameful. Several wholesalers that supply school contracts have mentioned to me that they are reducing portion sizes by, for example, offering less protein less frequently.
In conclusion, we need a new way. Labour’s mission-based strategic approach will help us to see the food system as a whole and will ensure that we all have access to more nutritious, sustainable, local, British-grown food.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher, and not in the Chamber asking me difficult questions. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for calling this debate.
The debate provides a great opportunity to put a spotlight on the important role the public sector has in leading positive change in our food system. Our public sector spends close to £5 billion a year on food and catering services in its supply chain, and it very much has an influential role in the transition to a healthier, more sustainable food system. DEFRA’s Government buying standards for food—GBSF for short—set out the requirements for public sector organisations to do that and to champion healthier, higher-quality, sustainable food in their supply chains. We want the public sector to lead by example and to demonstrate best practice, playing a vital role in helping local food culture and economies flourish by providing those standards. We are unleashing the purchasing power of the public sector.
Dr Hudson
Can I just highlight again the loophole in the Government buying standards the Minister mentioned? The public sector can deviate from buying high-quality food on the basis of cost; it can deviate from animal welfare standards if it is cheaper to do that. The Minister’s predecessor gave us very encouraging answers on the EFRA Committee on our recommendations for closing that loophole. It is a simple thing to do. I really urge the Government to look at that and to close the loophole, so that we can give the best example with our local public sector food procurement.
Mark Spencer
Of course, we want those consuming food purchased in the public sector to have access to the healthiest, best-quality food possible. We need to balance that with a desire to get good value for taxpayers’ money at the same time. Where foods are of the same quality and standard, we would of course expect people to purchase locally wherever possible. We want to use our influence to encourage people in the public sector to make the most of locally produced, high-quality British food. That is done through a blend of mandated standards that apply to central Government Departments —His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, NHS hospitals and the armed forces in England—and best practice standards, which exist to encourage all public sector organisations to work towards having healthier and more sustainable food in their supply chains.
Public sector food should champion healthier, sustainable food that is provided by a diverse range of suppliers. To underpin that approach, we held a consultation last year on public sector food and catering policy, including on updating the Government buying standards for food and catering services, which were last updated in 2014. Leaving aside the nutritional standards, which were updated in 2021, there was broad support for some of the proposals we included in the consultation, including pursuing greater environmental sustainability gains and increasing the opportunities for small and medium-sized businesses in the sector.
I am pleased to say that we have worked hard with colleagues across Government to take our response through to the final stages of drafting. I am confident that the revised standards will deliver positive change, as well as making life easier for those implementing them. The team has been working across Government with those Departments that have a vested interest, such as the Ministry of Defence, which has specific operational challenges in feeding its workforce, and with the Crown Commercial Services to oversee the consideration of SMEs in its new Buying Better Food and Drink agreement. That agreement will help SME food producers to access public sector food opportunities, provided that they meet the GBSF.
The GBSF already supports and strengthens cross-Government policies linked to environmental sustainability, animal welfare, food safety and nutrition. With regards to the environment, for example, the standards encourage the championing of seasonal produce and mandate that a proportion of food in the supply chain meets higher environmental production standards. That can currently be demonstrated through membership of organic and LEAF—linking environment and farming—assurance schemes, and we will continue to work to link them to world-class environmental land management schemes.
As well as bringing the standards up to date, the refresh will make the GBSF simpler and more engaging for those in the sector to interpret, whether returning to the standards or coming to them for the first time. Accompanying guidance will clarify how any changes can be applied, as well as improve the transparency of the supply chain, so that a greater range of potential suppliers are able to understand the opportunities the sector has to offer. To continue driving improvement and ambition in the sector, we will continue to develop and refine guidance following publication by engaging with the sector to improve uptake and retain Government focus on the priorities I have mentioned.
We have had a very interesting debate. I hope I have reassured Members that we are on the right track.
Anthony Mangnall
The Minister has been teasing us here. I think we all want to celebrate the hard work of the brilliant officials in his Department, so can he give us the date when these things will be published? We will then champion them in this place and recognise the brilliant work that has been done in refreshing all the things he has just mentioned.
Mark Spencer
I think “soon” is the answer that I can give my hon. Friend. We will soon publish the consultation findings, alongside the updated standards and guidance I talked about. We want to showcase the sustainable, high-welfare, quality produce that the public sector can procure. I will probably have to let the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) down and say that we will not deliver before Christmas, but I do not think she will have long to wait after that, because we want to get on with this—we want to procure the best food for our local schools.
I hear the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) assuring us that he is going to procure only local food. If I am being honest, I do not believe him. I hope that the model used by Labour-controlled Exeter City Council, which has denied people the right to have meat in their diet, will not be followed nationally.
Kerry McCarthy
It is not meant to all be locally produced; it is 50%. They do it in France. In the Government’s consultation, which closed on 4 September last year, that was one of the things they asked people for a view on. If the Minister thinks it is such nonsense, why did he bother consulting on it?
Mark Spencer
My point is that it cannot all be done locally. There has to be a balance. We are committed to improving the amount of food that we produce and procure locally. We want UK producers to be engaged in the system. We are making great progress on that, but we have to do it within the WTO standards, which are internationally recognised within the law. We will do it within those rules, and we will drive the amount of UK produce that is procured in the right direction.
I thank all the people who have taken part in the discussion today.
Mark Spencer
I cannot let this moment pass without a final discussion of venison in our diet.
Sir Charles Walker
We accept that protein is an important part of a balanced diet, particularly for children. I make this as a serious point: venison is sustainable. There is universal agreement—George Monbiot included—that we need to cull those animals. We must ensure that that healthy protein, with no hormones and no antibiotics, goes to those most in need, and our schools would be a good place to start.
Mark Spencer
I wholly accept my hon. Friend’s argument, and it is something we are taking very seriously. DEFRA is working on a deer strategy. I want to see that meat enter the food chain; we want to ensure that those animals are culled safely and that the meat is processed in the right way to make it available. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is low-fat, high-quality, sustainable, high-welfare meat, which we should make the most of. I commit to helping him with his campaign with DEFRA officials, to ensure that we can make it happen.
When we publish the revised GBSF, I encourage Members on both sides of the House to support their implementation across the public sector. They will not only help to demonstrate best practice in improving the healthiness and sustainability of the food we eat, but encourage small businesses, producers and social enterprises to make the most of the opportunities that the sector provides.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes for bringing forward this debate. I hope that Members will conclude that we are on the right track and heading in the right direction.
Anthony Mangnall
I will not take up much time, other than to thank you, Sir Christopher, for chairing this debate, and to thank hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions. I set out to create a specific definition that would allow us to comply with our international obligations and learn from international examples—from Denmark and the Nordic countries, Brazil, Austria and states in America—so that we can get this right.
We should also look at introducing the secondary legislation that was promised at the Dispatch Box. It offers us a real opportunity; it would have no difficulty passing through the House extremely quickly and would be welcomed in the House of Lords. As we approach the end of the year, I hope we can look at introducing and delivering that next year, as the Minister suggested.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered public sector food procurement and healthy eating.
Written Statements
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Places for Growth Update
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (John Glen)
Today we have published the latest statistics relating to Places for Growth role relocations. This publication sets out a Places for Growth programme overview, relocation data collection and methodology and progress against programme targets 2020 to 2023. Relocations data is broken down by nation, region, location, grade and Department, cumulatively providing a holistic overview of the progress made in relocating Government roles to date.
Places for Growth is delivering on the Government’s commitment to relocate 22,000 roles from London and to have 50% of UK-based senior civil service roles based outside London by 2030. In addition to publishing the latest statistics, today I have announced I am bringing forward the delivery timeframe to relocate 22,000 roles from 2030 to 2027. This recognises the huge progress that has been made to date on this initiative; since 2020 the Places for Growth programme has worked with Government Departments to relocate more than 16,000 roles. This announcement will also launch the headquarter locations of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology in Greater Manchester, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero in Aberdeen in addition to Salford and the Department for Business and Trade in Darlington, as well as establishing Wrexham as a key location benefiting from additional roles from the Ministry of Justice and an increase in headcount from the Department for Work and Pensions.
Through Government role relocations and the strengthening of civil service communities across the UK, Places for Growth supports a number of other key Government priorities including modernisation and reform, levelling up and strengthening the union.
Places for Growth will establish a network of locations across the regions and nations of the UK, supporting a geographically diverse civil service that delivers excellent public services, contributes to local economic growth and is better connected to, and representative of, the communities we serve.
I am depositing a copy of the Places For Growth role relocations data 2020 to 2023 in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
Following this statistical release, Places for Growth will publish Government role relocation data on gov.uk on a quarterly basis.
[HCWS114]
Energy Infrastructure Planning Projects
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire Coutinho)
This statement concerns an application for development consent made under the Planning Act 2008 by Sunnica Energy Farm for the construction and operation of a solar photovoltaic electricity generating station, situated across west Suffolk and east Cambridgeshire.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of the receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under section 107(3) of the Act to set a new deadline. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it.
The current statutory deadline for the decision on the Sunnica Energy Farm application is 7 December 2023.
I have decided to set a new deadline of no later than 7 March 2024 for deciding this application.
The decision to set the new deadline for this application is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.
[HCWS116]
Introduction of Forest Risk Commodities Regulations
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)
Deforestation is now the second leading cause of climate change globally, after burning fossil fuels, and is responsible for around 11% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Forests host around 80% of the world’s wildlife on land and are home to many species found nowhere else. In the last 60 years, more than half of tropical forests worldwide have been destroyed, reducing biodiversity and endangering beloved and crucial species like orangutans and other great apes, tigers, leopards, and jaguars.
Commodities such as cattle and palm oil have been identified as some of the key drivers of deforestation. The UK believes that working in partnership with producer countries to strengthen forest governance is the best way to prevent illegally deforested commodities from the global commodity market.
This is why, as world leaders gather at COP28 for the next round of climate negotiations, we are confirming how UK law will work to prevent the use of forest risk commodities derived from illegally deforested land in UK supply chains.
The legislation will help to protect precious tropical forests at risk of illegal clearance. This will help us to support producer country efforts to enforce their laws and stop illegal clearance and protect vital forest habitat for endangered wildlife.
New due diligence requirements
In 2021 this Government introduced new legislation in the Environment Act to tackle illegal deforestation in UK supply chains. This is a flagship measure to deliver on the commitment made by the UK and over 140 other countries at COP26 in Glasgow to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030.
Schedule 17 to the Environment Act introduced three core requirements on regulated businesses:
It prohibits them from using illegally produced forest risk commodities, including both raw and derived products.
It requires that they establish a due diligence system for each regulated commodity.
It requires that they report annually on their due diligence exercise. To ensure transparency, parts of their reports will be published.
Secondary legislation is necessary to operationalise the requirements of schedule 17. Therefore, we are developing regulations for key forest risk commodities to ensure that they were produced on land used in compliance with local land laws.
Commodities in scope
Initial secondary legislation will focus on four commodities identified as key drivers of deforestation: cattle products (excluding dairy), cocoa, palm oil and soy. These four commodities are estimated to account for 64% of the UK’s tropical deforestation footprint, with as much as 93% of this deforestation likely to be in violation of local laws. Regulating these four commodities will tackle over half of the UK’s estimated deforestation footprint and enable us to quickly put this critical regulation into force, while not disrupting trade and supply chains.
We will keep the regulations under review, taking an opportunity to make any necessary refinements if required. The use of illegally harvested timber in supply chains is regulated separately through the UK timber regulations.
Businesses in scope and exemptions
These regulations are a significant step towards reducing the UK’s overseas deforestation footprint. We are setting a global annual turnover threshold at £50 million to ensure that only larger businesses that can most effectively influence supply chains are in scope of the regulations. In addition, businesses that are using 500 tonnes or less of each commodity per annum can apply for an exemption from the obligations.
We are setting a grace period to enable businesses to prepare following the regulations being made. The intention is that the obligations will apply from the beginning of a reporting year.
Enforcement
The regulations will provide for a wide array of sanctions that can be used for a range of contraventions, from reporting failures to significant breaches of the prohibition against using forest risk commodities produced on land illegally occupied or used. Among these, we have set an unlimited monetary penalty to offer an effective deterrent to regulated businesses by enabling sufficiently high-value penalties to be applied for the most serious breaches, while offering a reasonable range that an enforcement body can use in practice.
To ensure fair and proportionate enforcement action, appropriate guidelines for the issuing of sanctions will be published.
Protecting biodiversity is a global priority and all nations have a part to play. This law shows the UK delivering on our commitments by ensuring that there is no place on our supermarket shelves for key commodities that have been grown on land that is illegally used or occupied, tackling climate change and helping to protect so many beloved endangered species.
[HCWS117]
Fire Reform White Paper and Consultation: Government’s Official Response
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I am pleased to announce to the House that the Government are today publishing our official response to the fire reform White Paper and consultation.
Last year we published our White Paper, “Reforming Our Fire and Rescue Service” (CP 670), to gauge the public and sector’s views on how we wished to drive reform within fire and rescue services. Our proposals were built on the lessons learned from the covid-19 pandemic as well as the recommendations from His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services’ independent inspections, challenging national report findings and the Grenfell Tower inquiry.
In the period since the White Paper was published, further challenges in the fire sector have been the focus of public and parliamentary debate. I refer, in particular, to the independent review of culture in the London Fire Brigade and the HMICFRS national spotlight report into values and culture. These reports highlighted misconduct in multiple fire and rescue services and uncovered totally unacceptable behaviours. Our White Paper response sets out our ambition to improve integrity across the sector.
The feedback on our proposals has allowed us to refine our next steps and announce today our package of reform, which will focus on the areas that have the biggest impact for the public and for fire professionals: developing a profession to be proud of and ensuring that fire services do more to put the public first. These include:
Introducing a professional college of fire and rescue to raise standards and strengthen leadership
Developing provision for fire chiefs to have operational independence
Tasking the National Joint Council to review the pay negotiation mechanism
Taking action to improve integrity and culture in fire and rescue services through improved training, more open recruitment practices and working towards a statutory code of ethics for fire and rescue employees.
Our fire and rescue professionals deserve our support as they not only respond to a changing world but also seek to develop and strengthen their own capabilities. This consultation response sets out how we can work together with partners across the fire sector to deliver this.
I would like to put on record my thanks to everyone who has engaged with us on our White Paper and consultation. Whether they have helped us shape our proposals or provided feedback on how they can work, their help has ensured we can drive forward much-needed and long overdue reform for our fire and rescue services and ensure the best possible service for the public.
The Government’s response has been laid before Parliament as a Command Paper (CP 993) and will be available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reforming-our-fire-and-rescue-service
[HCWS115]
Grand Committee
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bell rings and resume after 10 minutes.
Data Protection (Fundamental Rights and Freedoms) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Swinburne
That the Grand Committee do consider the Data Protection (Fundamental Rights and Freedoms) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
My Lords, these regulations, which were laid before the House on 7 November 2023, will be made under the powers provided by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, known as the retained EU law Act. They are concerned with the definition of “fundamental rights and freedoms” in the data protection legislation and making sure we continue to have a meaningful definition beyond the end of the year, when the retained EU law Act takes effect.
In several areas, the data protection legislation—specifically the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK general data protection regulation, which I will refer to as the UK GDPR from now on—requires the Government, the Information Commissioner and organisations using personal data to consider people’s “fundamental rights and freedoms” in certain situations. For example, Ministers must consider such rights and freedoms when creating new exemptions or permissions for the use of people’s special category data, and data controllers must consider them when relying on the “legitimate interests” lawful ground for processing under Article 6(1)(f) of the UK GDPR. It is vital that, in circumstances such as this, the rights of individuals continue to be carefully considered and protected.
Prior to EU exit, references to fundamental rights and freedoms in the data protection legislation were taken to mean rights described in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights—which I will refer to as the charter. Following the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, some of these rights were retained by Section 4 of that Act. Given that Section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act will be repealed at the end of 2023 by the retained EU law Act 2023, action is needed now via this statutory instrument to replace the definition of “fundamental rights and freedoms”. Without action, there would be a lack of clarity about what these references mean. This could cause significant difficulties for organisations trying to apply the data protection legislation, risking inconsistent approaches, legal uncertainty and insufficient protection of data subjects’ rights.
That is why, through the draft regulations, the Government are clarifying that references to fundamental rights and freedoms in the data protection legislation mean rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, known as the ECHR, as defined by the Human Rights Act 1998. By doing this, the Government are ensuring that there is a clear, legally meaningful definition to rely on. This will provide consistency and certainty for organisations which are subject to data protection legislation, as well as continued protection for people’s rights. It is important to note that these regulations themselves do not remove any EU law rights; it is the European Union (Withdrawal) Act and the retained EU law Act that do that. These regulations are simply designed to replace references to EU law that would become meaningless at the end of this year.
I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and European Statutory Instruments Committee for their views on these regulations. I have noted their concerns that rights protected by domestic law under the Human Rights Act might not provide the same level of protection as rights protected by EU law under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The matter of protection of people’s rights is of utmost importance, and I take this opportunity to reassure the Committee that the changes we are making via these regulations will not significantly affect the way the data protection framework works or indeed erode the protections it affords to people. Prior to EU exit, EU law rights protected by the charter included, for example, the right to respect for private and family life, the right to protection of personal data and the right to freedom of expression. The new definition will be based on rights protected by the ECHR, which includes the right to respect for private and family life and the right to freedom of expression.
The committee and others have raised a concern that the regulations remove reference to the specific right to data protection that was a feature of the charter. It is true that there is no such free-standing right under the ECHR. However, case law on this issue shows that data protection forms part of the protection offered by the right to respect for private and family life in Article 8 of the ECHR. It is further protected by our data protection legislation, which provides a comprehensive set of rules for organisations to follow and rights for people in relation to use of their data. The stand-alone right to protection of personal data was a feature of EU law and its removal is a result of EU exit legislation, including the retained EU law Act, rather than these regulations, which merely replace outdated terminology to recognise the new position.
I inform the Committee that we have formally consulted the Information Commissioner’s Office on the drafting of these regulations, and it recognises why the data protection legislation cannot continue to refer to rights that have been repealed. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to this crowded box-office occasion—over the years it has been for aficionados, by and large.
I thank her for setting out the purpose of these regulations. Originally, they were to be approved by the negative procedure. It is to the great credit of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that, in its 53rd report, it recommended an upgrade of the instrument to the affirmative procedure because of concerns about a potential reduction in rights protection. I heard what the Minister said in her introduction.
In its report, the committee quoted the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, which stated that
“the impact on organisations and individuals as a result of the proposed changes was expected ‘to be minimal’”,
and that the changes
“replicate the current position ‘as far as possible’, but it was unable to rule out entirely potential differences in the rights and freedoms”.
In those circumstances, I need to thank the Minister and the Government for bringing back these draft regulations for affirmative approval—in other words, for listening to the committee.
However, our conclusion is that the regulations fail to contain damaging uncertainty and inconsistency in this area, which is exactly what concerned the SLSC. I am afraid it will be clear from our debate next week on the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, as it was when we recently debated the Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) (Identity Verification Services) Regulations 2023, that data is a really weak spot for this Government—as if they needed any more.
I am afraid that it is clear that these regulations by themselves are insufficient to stabilise the UK’s data protection frameworks once what has been called the tsunami of legal uncertainty unleashed by the retained EU law Act—REULA—engulfs us on 31 December 2023. The Minister lightly skipped over that. When the UK stopped being subject to the EU treaties at the end of 2020, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—EUWA—saved the rights and obligations which applied in domestic law as a result of the UK’s EU membership. This meant, in essence, that the EU GDPR became the UK GDPR. The Data Protection Act 2018 remained on the statute book. The rights and obligations became part of retained EU law—the vast body of law saved from the EU legal framework on the UK’s departure. Retained EU law was to be interpreted as it had been while the UK was an EU member state. This created continuity and certainty as to what the law meant.
The Court of Justice of the European Union—CJEU—case law from before the end of 2020 was also preserved in domestic law, as was domestic case law interpreting EU rights and obligations. The general principles of EU law, which include fundamental rights and the protection of personal data, were retained as an aid to the interpretation of our data protection frameworks. The principle of the supremacy of EU law was preserved. This meant that, in a conflict between the provisions in the UK GDPR and the DPA 2018, the UK GDPR took precedence. This was confirmed in the case of R (on the application of the Open Rights Group) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. In this case, the retained principle of supremacy was relied on by the Court of Appeal to find that the overly broad exemption in the DPA 2018 from data subject rights in an immigration context was unlawful. Yesterday, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Government must amend the immigration exemption in Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act because it is incompatible with Article 23 of the UK GDPR. This sort of argument will no longer be possible after the end of this month because the exemptions in Schedule 2 to the DPA will take precedence over the UK GDPR.
The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights was not saved into the domestic statute book. The Government’s view was that this made no substantive difference because the charter simply listed the rights found in EU law, so because the rights and obligations listed in the charter were being saved into domestic law through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, no rights would be lost. Further, the EUWA clarified that retained case law which referred to rights in the charter should be read as referring to the underlying rights and obligations listed in the charter. This ensured that case law which referred to the charter would still be applicable.
Nothing in EUWA prevented Parliament legislating to change the UK GDPR and the DPA 2018. Indeed, the White Paper on the EUWA stated that, after the UK’s exit from the EU:
“It will then be for democratically elected representatives in the UK to decide on any changes to that law, after full scrutiny and proper debate”.
As we will be discussing next Tuesday at its Second Reading, the UK’s data protection frameworks are being changed through the vehicle of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. As I have indicated to the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, these Benches do not welcome those changes and regard them as dilutions of data subject rights.
However, there are also fundamental changes to the UK’s statute book being made at the end of this year through the REULA, which will sweep away the retained EU general principles, including fundamental rights and the requirement to interpret retained EU law in accordance with those principles. Further, the principle of the supremacy of EU law is being deleted. The default position is that domestic law whenever enacted will trump the law which came from the EU.
Changes introduced by REULA are bound to create legal uncertainty. In terms of the UK GDPR and the DPA 2018, EU fundamental rights are the underpinning foundation of the law. If they are simply deleted—the default position under REULA—the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 will become more difficult to interpret. This is, of course, why the regulations have been introduced. They are intended to ensure that, as the Minister said, references to fundamental rights and freedoms in the UK GDPR and the DPA 2018 are read as references to fundamental rights and freedoms as set out in the European Convention on Human Rights as implemented through the Human Rights Act 1998.
On one level, this makes sense. Article 8 of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights—the right to the protection of personal data—is based on Article 8 of the ECHR on the right to private and family life, but it is not certain that the rights under Article 8 of the ECHR provide exactly the same protections as the right to data protection in the EU legal order. First, this is because the ECHR has no specific fundamental right to the protection of personal data. In the case of R (Davis & Watson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the High Court held that Article 8 of the charter goes further and is more specific than Article 8 of the ECHR. Secondly, the charter contains general provisions explaining how the relevant rights should be interpreted, and Article 52 of the charter confirms that, when rights in the charter correspond to the rights in the ECHR, the meaning and scope of those rights should be the same as in the ECHR, although the EU is not prevented from providing more extensive protections. Whether EU fundamental rights provided more extensive protection than those under the ECHR will be tested in the courts over the coming years, but there is likely to be uncertainty in relation to this point from the end of this year.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
The Minister will probably be relieved to know that I do not have a speech as long as that of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, but I share many of his concerns. I would very much appreciate some of the detailed questions that the noble Lord asked being put to the test in an essay to us, perhaps in the form of a letter. That might be very helpful.
As the noble Baroness said, the regulations propose to replace the definition of fundamental rights and freedoms contained in the UK general data protection regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. As the SLSC noted, these are currently defined by reference to rights contained in retained EU law.
I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the regulations were originally to be under the negative procedure. I am glad that the Minister and officials have decided that that was an unwise course, because it would have given us very little control over the process and would not have enabled the sort of scrutiny that we in this House have come to expect.
I also share the noble Lord’s concern about the data protection framework being a weak spot. There is not much question about that. As he says, this acts as a curtain-raiser to our discussions and debates on the Bill coming forward next Tuesday. The data protection framework is undoubtedly being changed and not, it seems, for the better. These regulations foresee a time when there will be a weaker level of data protection, and I do not think that is in the public interest.
The DSIT colleague, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, told the SLSC that
“the impact on organisations and individuals as a result of the proposed changes was expected ‘to be minimal’, … but … was unable to rule out entirely potential differences in the rights and freedoms”.
As the SLSC concluded, while DSIT had
“not identified any discernible impact, any changes in this sensitive area may be regarded as politically significant”
and something on which, quite rightly, the House would want to comment.
We welcome the work of the sifting committees and that, as a result of their reports, the SI is being debated as it should be. We do not oppose the statutory instrument. We share the sifting committees’ concern about changes brought by the repeal of EU-derived rights at the end of the year and that these may, directly or indirectly, lead to a lower overall level of protection for individuals. However, we note that, while we are debating the SI only a short time before the Christmas Recess, the department did publish draft regulations in September. This has given relevant parties time to prepare for the changes, which has not always been the case under different iterations of His Majesty’s Government.
As highlighted by the Commons debate, we must consider this SI in the context of broader changes to domestic data protection law, and the potential long-term consequences of these changes on our relationship with other jurisdictions. As I said earlier, your Lordships’ House will shortly begin consideration of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. Concerns have already been voiced that this will lower data protection standards and thresholds and, as a result, put our EU data adequacy decision at risk when it comes up for review.
We will have the opportunity to discuss those issues in more detail next week, but we would be grateful to the Minister if she could distance herself from the unfortunate comments of Minister Whittingdale in the Commons, who accused my colleague, Sir Chris Bryant, of appearing to see conspiracy where none actually exists. We do not believe that is the case; we believe these concerns are rightly stated. It is our role to scrutinise His Majesty’s Government and to ask legitimate questions that are of concern to the public. We are doing so at a time when there are live debates within the Conservative Party about the extent to which the UK should adhere or even remain signatories to international human rights treaties.
So, while we support the SI’s passage, as it will keep the statute book in order as parts of retained EU law are swept away, the department has a lot more work to do to convince us and other noble Lords of its broader approach to data protection law. I give notice today that we will be following very closely the debates next week scrutinising legislation at Second Reading and, with colleagues, will no doubt be submitting amendments to the legislation to toughen it up. It is clear to us that there is a direction of travel, and it is not one that we agree with.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank noble Lords, who are very well versed in this topic and have obviously spent a lot of time thinking about it. I have had some flashbacks to my time in the European Parliament, where I did the original GDPR. I am glad that people now think it was a perfect piece of work. At the time, people were very critical of what we did.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
It is definitely not punishment, but it has taken me back, and I am on a steep learning curve here. I thank noble Lords for their interventions. I will try to do some justice to them. As was suggested, if I have not covered the topics adequately, given that the questions were incredibly detailed, I will respond in writing so that noble Lords will have the detail.
As I mentioned in my introductory remarks, it is important to note that these regulations themselves do not remove any EU law rights. Parliament has already agreed to do that in passing the European Union (Withdrawal) Act and the retained EU law Act. If we support these regulations today, instead of allowing references to EU law rights in the data protection legislation to lapse without replacement, we will instead ensure that the relevant organisations continue to consider analogous rights under our domestic law where it is appropriate to do so.
The overall effect of the changes made by these regulations will neither undermine protections for individuals nor increase the regulatory burden for organisations. There could even be some benefits for organisations in the sense they will only need to consider how the rights of individuals are protected by rights recognised in domestic law rather than trying to comprehend how retained EU law protected those rights.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I want to pose a brief question to her. The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“As this instrument is made under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, no review clause is required”.
Does that mean that absolutely no review will take place for these provisions and how they work out in future? Or is the implication that it is wrapped inside all the impacts of REULA and therefore that there will be an assessment of how REULA has affected domestic law in general? I would be quite happy if the Minister writes to me on that.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
Given the specificity of that question, we will write to the noble Lord with an answer.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes A, B, C, D and H and New Code I) Order 2023
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the Grand Committee do consider the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes A, B, C, D and H and New Code I) Order 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes A, B, C, D and H and New Code I) Order 2023 was laid before this House on 16 October 2023. This debate follows a debate that I took part in on 4 December regarding three instruments related to the National Security Act that were also laid on 16 October.
Turning to the order we are discussing today, Section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, or PACE, requires the Home Secretary to issue codes of practice which govern the use of police powers, including the associated rights and safeguards for suspects and the public in England and Wales. The revised and new codes of practice before us ensure that those codes reflect the provisions of both the National Security Act 2023 and the Public Order Act 2023.
Before getting into the detail of the changes, I begin by noting that, as per Section 67(4) of PACE, two separate consultations on these changes were carried out, one in relation to each of the new Acts. These were carried out from 20 July to 31 August this year. The responses were generally positive about the changes proposed and the Government considered and incorporated suggestions for further amendments to the codes of practice following these consultations. The full details of the consultations and the Government’s response can be found on GOV.UK.
I will now briefly outline the changes made through this order—first, those to PACE Code A required as a result of amendments to stop and search powers made in the Public Order Act 2023 and the Government’s commitment to streamline stop and search guidance. Following Royal Assent of the Public Order Act 2023, PACE Code A required modifications to emphasise that the suspicion-led stop and search power introduced in Section 10 of the Public Order Act is afforded the safeguards contained in Code A. The suspicionless powers in Section 11 of the same Act authorise the police to stop and search individuals and vehicles to find objects made, adapted or intended to be used in connection with protest-related offences.
We are also changing PACE Code A to include provisions to improve community relations and data collection as currently found in the Best Use of Stop and Search Scheme guidance. Communicating the use of suspicionless search powers such as Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and Section 11 of the Public Order Act 2023, where it is operationally beneficial to do so, and embedding a data collection requirement within the code, will build on the existing trust and confidence between the police and the community they serve.
Finally, changes proposed to PACE Code A include an updated start date for the serious violence reduction order pilot, which commenced in April this year, and an update to the ethnicity list found in Annexe B to reflect the latest categories from the 2021 census.
The amendments related to the National Security Act concern PACE Codes A, B, C, D and H, along with a new PACE Code I. In summary, the amendments to Code A are required to govern how searches of individuals subject to prevention and investigation measures under Part 2 of the Act should be carried out. These changes mirror the existing provisions in Code A for the equivalent terrorism measures.
The amendments to Code B, which covers search, seizure and retention powers, are required to account for the new search and seizure powers introduced by Schedule 2 to the National Security Act. They largely replicate those already contained in Code B for similar powers.
The changes to PACE Codes C and D make it clear that those codes do not apply to relevant provisions in the National Security Act or Schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, such as detention provisions. This is because separate codes—including the new PACE Code I—deal with those provisions.
Both Codes A and D are also amended to exempt an officer having to give their name in the case of inquiries linked to national security. This extends the approach currently taken towards terrorism investigations and provides a crucial change to protect the identities of police officers from state actors who may seek to do them harm.
The changes to Code H implement recommendations made by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, which the Government have accepted. They largely reflect amendments to Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 made via the National Security Act—for example, making it clear that time spent in detention under certain other detention powers will be accounted for when calculating the maximum period of detention.
Finally, this order brings into operation a new PACE Code I to govern the detention, treatment and questioning of individuals arrested under Section 27 of the National Security Act. This code contains various operational procedural matters, such as how to arrange for an interpreter for the suspect, what information must be documented in the custody record, how to provide cautions and what to do with the detainee’s property upon arrest. The code is based very closely on PACE Code H, which provides guidance for the detention and treatment of persons arrested under terrorism legislation, including the updates I have just set out.
I point out that the changes to these codes are supported by Counter Terrorism Policing and the Crown Prosecution Service. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation has also specifically supported the changes to Code H.
I hope I have made it clear that changes made by this order are supportive of primary legislation that has already been agreed by Parliament. These revised codes promote the fundamental principles to be observed by the police and help preserve the effectiveness of, and public confidence in, the use of their legislative powers.
I very much hope noble Lords will support these revisions to the PACE codes of practice. I commend the order to the Committee, and I beg to move.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. As he said, the changes have already been debated at length and approved by Parliament, and we will not oppose them. However, I would like to make some specific points. Perhaps the Minister could address them in his summation.
We do, of course, understand the importance of ensuring, at a time of heightened and ongoing risk from hostile state actors, that the powers we give our police are a match for those people who seek to harm us. We also appreciate the need to give officers on the ground clear guidance, but there must be a balance between allowing the police to do their job and protecting civil liberties. We welcome attempts to keep the public informed about what the police are doing in relation to suspicionless stop and search. We hope this will go some way to re-establish trust among those citizens most commonly subjected to this practice, namely members of the black community.
We note concerns raised during the consultation process about when the public will be alerted to the use of suspicionless stop and search. The concern is that the term “operationally beneficial” is simply not clear enough to define when it will be in operation. Everyone recognises the importance of police operational autonomy, but can the Minister confirm that this particular concern has been taken into account?
We welcome the new data collection requirement in Code A, particularly given that the ethnicity of 20% of those subjected to stop and search in the year ending March 2022 remains unknown because it was not recorded. However, our key concern remains the extension of police powers to stop and search someone without reasonable grounds for suspicion. We have made our concerns clear that extending these powers now is fundamentally incompatible with the findings of the Casey review and the recent IOPC report, both of which found that progress in tackling racial disparity in stop and search still has a very long way to go.
In light of this, what signal are we sending to these communities in giving the police even greater leeway to carry on that practice, despite the well-documented racial bias still evident in it? Sadly, I suspect that, for many, it says that we are just not listening.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these revisions to the PACE codes. He outlined the reasons for the changes, which reflect the various provisions of the National Security Act 2023 and the Public Order Act 2023. As such, the various rights and wrongs of the provisions have been debated, and they have been included in primary legislation. There is no need to rehearse these debates, but I will ask some questions about the resulting changes to the PACE codes.
PACE Code A is to be changed to include provisions to improve community relations and data collection. Given the importance, as we heard from the noble Baroness, of confidence and trust around suspicionless stop and search in particular, can the Minister say what these changes are and whether they help deal with issues such as disproportionality and the maintenance of community trust, which we all wish to see in the code? The changes say that they do that, so it would be interesting to know how.
More generally, is there any difference under these codes in the treatment of children or do they apply to everyone regardless of age? Some clarification on that would be helpful. Although the Minister said that these changes come from the National Security Act and the Public Order Act, given some of the questions around the use of stop and search, could other changes be made using this as a vehicle? One example mentioned here is strip-search. We have guidance for strip-search here, but we know what controversy there has been around it. I sometimes wonder whether the machine says, “We’ve had the National Security Act and the Public Order Act, so we need these changes to the PACE code that flow from that”, but there may be a missed opportunity to reflect more widely on some of the issues around what is sensible.
I think the Minister did so, but can he confirm that the stop and search powers in Sections 10 and 11 of the Public Order Act are now fully covered by these revised PACE codes?
The revised codes also include a date for the start of the serious violence reduction order pilot. When will this start and, given that it is a pilot, where will it take place? The Minister in the other place said that this was an updated start date. What caused the delay in the first place? I think the original intention, according to the statement of the Minister in the other place, was for it to start this April.
We support the various changes in the amended codes and the introduction of the new Code I, following the National Security Act 2023. As the Minister helpfully pointed out, the consultation showed that there was general support from not only the police and the CPS but the independent reviewer for the various revisions to the codes in terms of how persons are detained and treated when arrested under terrorism legislation.
Given that terrorism legislation is not devolved, but these PACE codes deal with England and Wales, will the Minister say what discussions have taken place with Northern Ireland—I presume with officials there—and Scotland, and how the PACE codes have been updated? The Minister spent some time talking about the welcome changes that were made to the PACE codes with respect to terrorism, but these codes refer to England and Wales and not to Scotland and Northern Ireland. How has that been dealt with? It would be interesting to hear from the Minister about what has happened there.
PACE Codes A and D are amended so that an officer does not have to give their name in the case of inquiries linked to national security. I understand that—it is for sensible and obvious reasons, as the Government said—but how would it work if somebody wanted to complain or get a review of their treatment? I appreciate that the name should not be given, but could a number be given, or is there some other method by which anonymity could be protected while recognising that sometimes issues arise and somebody may wish to complain or take forward something that has occurred in an interview? They may have been interviewed and perhaps even arrested and then released and wish to make some complaint about it. How will that be dealt with?
We accept these changes and recognise the importance of striking the balance between individual rights and security. Public confidence and trust are everything, even in challenging circumstances. I urge the Government to do everything in their power to ensure that we maintain that confidence and trust with respect to the implementation of this order. We do not oppose these important codes, but some clarifications would be helpful for us all.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. I will do my best to deal with the points raised.
The noble Lord finished on the subject of whether it is proportionate, in effect, to allow police officers to not give their names in inquiries linked to national security, as per Codes A and D. The Government have amended Codes A and D to exempt officers from having to give their name in cases of inquiries linked to national security, which extends the approach currently taken towards terrorism investigations. It is a crucial change to protect police officers from being obliged to reveal their identity to state actors who may be highly trained and seek to use such knowledge to conduct harmful activity against them. It is difficult to see how an individual might write a complaint against an officer who is interfering with them, but I will look into it, and if I can find anything useful to enlighten the noble Lord, I will come back to him.
The noble Lord also asked whether we have been consulting the devolved Administrations. The answer is yes. We have been consulting them extensively. When PACE Northern Ireland will be published is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive. However, they are undertaking a review of the PACE Northern Ireland codes of practice and are apparently about to revise them. As soon as I have those revisions, I will let the noble Lord know.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Given that the Executive and the Assembly are not functioning, does he mean that officials are doing that?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I assume so, but I will find out and come back to the noble Lord.
The Government also obtained concurrence from the Lord Advocate for the part of this that applies to Scotland. We engaged with the Scottish Government and Scottish policing throughout the process of creating this code. I believe that one or two of the changes made reflect Scottish policing’s comments on it.
On disproportionality, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, as well as the noble Lord, of course I understand the concerns around disproportionality and the impact of stop and search, particularly on members of the black community. Nobody should be targeted because of their race. Extensive safeguards such as statutory codes of practice and body-worn video exist to ensure this does not happen.
It is worth pointing out that, although disparities in the use of stop and search remain, it is positive that they have continued to decrease for the past four years. The proposals set out in these changes, such as the communication of the suspicionless stop and search authorisation will, in my view, improve the relationship between black and ethnic minority groups and the police. Of course, the phraseology behind that—“where operationally beneficial” in particular—was very carefully considered to sort out this issue.
It is also worth saying that the Home Office now publishes more data than ever before on police powers, including the use of stop and search. As part of the inclusive Britain strategy, the Home Office Race Disparity Unit and Office for National Statistics have worked to improve the way stop and search data is reported and to enable more accurate comparisons to be made between different police force areas. The proposed change on data in this updated code would reflect the power given to the Home Secretary under Section 44 of the Police Act 1996, but this data is collected and published online as part of a statistics bulletin.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about protections for children. There are safeguards in this code as well. Children detained will have to have an appropriate adult assigned to represent their best interests.
The noble Lord also asked whether there was a delay—there was. It was supposed to be rolled out on 17 January this year but ended up commencing on 19 April. The reason for that was the difficulty of getting the training in place in time. The four pilot areas are the West Midlands, Thames Valley, Merseyside and Sussex.
With that, I think I have answered the questions that were asked of me. I reiterate that the updated and new PACE codes of practice will help the police to use their powers in a proportionate and consistent manner in accordance with the primary legislation. As such, I commend this order to the Committee and thank both noble Lords for their support.
Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2023
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2023.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the health charge reflects the cost to the NHS of providing healthcare to health charge payers. The increase supports the sustainability of our NHS, ensuring vital NHS services are funded and allowing wider NHS funding to be directed towards other priorities in the system.
The health charge was introduced in April 2015 to ensure that migrants contribute directly to the comprehensive and high-quality NHS services available to them from the moment they arrive in the UK. We all recognise the great contributions migrants make to help grow our economy and support our NHS; it is also important that those who use and benefit from our public services, such as the NHS, make a sufficient financial contribution towards the cost of these services.
The health charge is paid by temporary migrants applying for a visa to enter the UK for more than six months. It is paid up front, separate to the visa fee, and covers the full cost to the NHS of providing healthcare to those who pay it. Once paid, a charge-payer can access NHS services in broadly the same manner as permanent residents without having made any prior tax or national insurance contributions. Where additional NHS charges are paid, these are consistent with those paid by a UK resident, such as prescription charges in England.
Since its inception the Health Charge has generated more than £5.1 billion for the NHS. The funds generated are shared between the health administrations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, using the now-familiar formula devised by Lord Barnett.
The health charge must be set at a level that broadly reflects the cost to the NHS of treating those who pay it. The current rate, introduced in 2020, as determined by the Department for Health and Social Care, does not currently do this. The new rate of health charge replaces that agreed in 2020 by this House; it reflects the increases in healthcare expenditure and revised assumptions of migrant use of healthcare services. Using more recent and representative data better reflects NHS service use by health charge payers.
The order amends Schedule 1 to the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015. The full rate of the charge will increase to £1,035 per person per annum, with the discounted rate for students, their dependants, those on youth mobility schemes and under-18s, increasing to £776 per person per annum. These levels are currently set at £624 and £470 respectively.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s introduction to this statutory instrument, but he raises more rather than fewer questions for me. First, I point out that it would perhaps have been helpful to have debated together this SI and the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2023, debated on Monday 4 December, as many of the arguments raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and others in her regret Motion debate also apply here. The Home Office may see them as separate but, for the migrant, it is part of a large increase in the visa taxes that they and their dependants have to pay up front.
This SI, alongside all the other legislation that the Government are introducing in relation to immigration, shows that, frankly, the current system is broken. These damaging new rules mean that British employers cannot recruit people they need; more families will be separated by unfair and complex visa requirements; and public confidence in the system has, frankly, been shattered.
One sector particularly severely affected will be our universities and research councils—I declare an interest, as I worked in that sector for 20 years. They will struggle to recruit the best international students because the cost for students, whether undergraduate or graduate students, post-docs or even senior research associates, will rise, because the fees charged by this Government are becoming a real barrier.
This week, Times Higher Education quoted Shashi Singh, who obtained his PhD at the prestigious Indian Institutes of Technology, which is on a par with the absolute best in the world—fewer than 4% of applications to study there are accepted. He is now a senior research associate in molecular biology at the University of Glasgow School of Infection and Immunity, and exactly the sort of world-leading scientist we should be encouraging to stay. He said:
“Last month, I paid £6,000 for settlement of my wife and daughter. When postdocs’ salaries are around £40,000 a year … that’s a huge strain on your family budget”.
He explains that the family cannot afford a car or taxis, because that
“money is needed to buy food or has already been used to pay for visas”.
This year, he, his wife and daughter would have paid a total of £1,718 for their annual health charge. Next year, with the 66% increase, it rises to a total £2,846.
I noticed in his introduction that the Minister said very clearly that the fee was separate to the visa fee. The problem is that those being charged do not feel that it is separate. The graph in the Explanatory Memorandum shows that in fact hardly any fee waivers were granted over the past three years.
In 2021-22, international students contributed £41 billion to our economy. That means that every 11 non-EU students generate £1 million-worth of net economic impact for the UK economy. This covers fees and payments for living costs such as rent and food. The problem is that post-docs such as Shashi will consider not coming to the UK at all. This is exactly the target group whom the Government should be supporting, not trying to deter. Their contribution to their university and their local community, the quality of their research and paying taxes are everything that this Government should aim for with their repeated mantras about “world-beating research”, yet it seems that the current Prime Minister has already forgotten Boris Johnson’s global talent scheme. Will the Minister explain how we will attract and retain the brightest of academics, whether students or post-docs, to deliver world-beating research when the Government are charging them these very large sums for a number of visa taxes?
Frankly, the increase in the health charge is the most extraordinary this year. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s fifth report sets out a range of concerns relating to it. It states that the Government’s methodology is “unconvincing” and does not explain with evidence the justification for this large increase. A more cynical person might feel that “made up on the back of an envelope” would be more appropriate. Certainly, if you read the detail of the Explanatory Memorandum, it is extremely difficult to find the method. The Home Office’s explanation is that there are three elements to the calculation: the overall cost of the NHS, the total population and then a “factor” that adjusts for the fact that migrants tend to use the NHS less than the average person because they are younger on average. So you divide overall cost by the population then multiply by the migrant costs factor to provide an estimate of the cost of the average migrant to the NHS.
The SLSC reiterates the point that the reason the amount has increased so much is because on one of those three data points the Home Office has substantially increased the migrant cost factor, but with no evidence. It is no good turning to the Explanatory Memorandum to the instrument because that provides no details on why the charge is to be increased at a rate well in excess of national health spending. The latter has increased by 25% since the last increase in the health charge, whereas the health charge is increasing by more than two-thirds, as I said earlier. Will the Government undertake to publish the full methodology before this SI is enacted and certainly before it is implemented?
Worse, the impact assessment on page 5 of the SI bundle states:
“Baseline volumes of visa applications are based on Home Office internal planning assumptions. The volumes used are highly uncertain and may not match actual numbers in future published statistics. The impact of increased IHS on volumes is based on assumptions of price elasticity of demand for visas”.
Will the Minister say what “price elasticity” means and how it has helped the Government come to the proposed increase? Surely it must not mean an excuse for charging whatever sum the Government want to increase it by a year, but without that empirical evidence of the background data, it is almost impossible to determine this.
There is a place for immigration and nationality visa fees but they should remain affordable, and if they have to go up, the increase must not be higher than inflationary levels. It is vital for our economy that British employers must be able to hire the workers they need, and those who choose to come to the UK to work or study should be welcomed for the skills and contributions that they bring, no matter how short a time they are here for. Most do not stay; they remain for a limited period only. Everyone should be able to have confidence that the immigration system is functioning properly. Our Benches would make migration work for the UK with merit-based work visas instead of an arbitrary salary threshold, which is a further problem.
At the moment, however, the real issue is how many of our migrants are going to face this enormous surcharge in the NHS fee, which has not been justified in any of the documentation provided by the Home Office.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, as always, this SI is important. Many of the debates that led to the current system took place elsewhere. We need to seek to understand the instruments that are then put in place to make a reality of other government policies. I agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, helpfully outlined. I also thank the Minister for his introduction.
This SI increases the charge payable by some migrants to access the NHS. The headline figure, for those people paying the main rate, will increase from £624 to £1,035—a large increase of 66%, compared with the 25% rise in NHS costs over the same period. There is a reduced rate for those under the age of 18, which increases from £470 to £776. Like the noble Baroness, we do not necessarily oppose the increases, or an increase, but what is the Government’s justification for such a large increase, which is well above the NHS rate of inflation over the same period? We are comparing 25% to 66%, which is quite a significant disparity. The Minister will need to justify to the Committee why the Government have seen fit to do that. Can the Minister say any more than he has done about what happens to those who cannot afford the charge? Can he confirm that it is a one-off charge, not an ongoing one? I assume it is, but I would be interested in that being clarified.
What updated evidence are the Government using to justify this figure? What assumptions do they use in their papers regarding the use of services argument? The Government explain that they believe the increase will help to deter some migrants applying to enter or remain in the UK. Again, where is the evidence for that? Is it the right policy to use health charges to try to deter migrants coming into the UK? If the Government believe that it will deter them, have they made any estimates of the numbers that will be deterred, or is it just a statement that some will be deterred without any estimate? Do any working papers in the Home Office give us an assessment or understanding of what that will be? The noble Baroness asked some of these questions. Have the Government made any assessment of the impact of these changes on business?
What is the Government’s answer to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s criticism that they used questionable methodology in determining and justifying the increase? Why is that committee wrong in its assessment of some of the methodology the Government used?
It is important to understand the figures. What is the Government’s estimate of the number who pay the charge currently and how much it raises, alongside future projections? I think the Minister said that it currently raises £1.7 billion, if I understood what he said. What is the projected figure over the next period?
The Explanatory Memorandum outlines and clarifies various exemptions. The Minister and the noble Baroness said something about some of the exemptions to paying the health charge. Can the Minister outline for the record what some of these clarifications and exemptions mean? How many actually receive any sort of waiver? As the noble Baroness pointed out, it appears from the charts as though hardly anybody receives a waiver or an exemption. Some clarity on that would be helpful.
Paragraph 2.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum talks about a number of different things that it would be helpful for us to understand. It talks about those on the Ukraine and statelessness immigration routes. I understand what the Ukraine immigration route is, but what exactly is the statelessness immigration route? It then talks about exemptions for “certain NHS workers”. Who are those “certain NHS workers”? Has this changed at all with this instrument—in other words, has the exempted list of certain NHS workers been extended or reduced?
It also talks about exemptions for “specified protection cohorts”. Can the Minister outline what a specified protection cohort is? One of the problems with migration, immigration and asylum is that sometimes it all gets mixed up—including in my own mind. Just to be clear, what is the status of Afghans, those from Hong Kong and others who come here under various schemes?
We have accepted the principle of immigration health charges and do not necessarily oppose this SI but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I have said, a number of questions need answering. Health charges need to be fair both in the level they are set at and in how they operate. The justification for such a large increase and the operation of the scheme alongside it are of extreme importance, which is why we have put various questions to the Minister.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their contributions to this shortish debate. I will do my very best to answer all their questions and commit to write if there are any that I cannot answer.
Those who move to a new country expect to pay towards healthcare. Countries around the world have a range of systems in place to do this, in line with individual healthcare models. It is right that we continue to prioritise the sustainability of the NHS and that temporary migrants make a financial contribution to NHS services available to them in the UK. Payment of the health charge provides near-comprehensive access to our health service, regardless of the amount of care needed, even for those with pre-existing health conditions.
I shall try to address all the issues raised. The health charge should broadly reflect the cost of treating those who pay it. However, the rates for students and their dependants, applicants to the youth mobility scheme and children under 18 will remain discounted. The increased rate of the health charge is comparable to the cost of private medical insurance here and abroad, which is a common requirement for individuals wishing to migrate to many other countries.
I think both noble Lords referred to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. We thank it for considering the order and providing a detailed report on the legislation. Before I go into the methodology, I reassure the Committee that the Government have undertaken robust and detailed analysis of the annual cost to the NHS of treating health charge payers to determine the increased cost of the health charge. Increases to the health charge are based on the most recent data representing charge payers’ use of NHS services, more accurately determining the current cost to the NHS of treating health charge payers. The Government acknowledge the delay in providing responses to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Unfortunately, this was unavoidable, due to factors such as the changes in ministerial teams and the need for assurances of the responses between departments.
I turn to the methodology and the DHSC calculation. As set out by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 July, the health charge rates have remained unchanged for the last three years, despite high inflation and wider pressures facing the healthcare system. The increases to the charge reflect the higher costs in healthcare budgets since 2020. Additionally, the assumptions for how intensively charge payers use healthcare services in different settings have been revised to use more recent and representative data intended to better reflect migrants’ use of these NHS services. While the health charge is increasing, it is still considerably lower than the comparable average cost per capita of providing healthcare for the average UK resident, which currently stands at approximately £2,700 per person per annum.
I am aware of concerns around the combined cost of the health charge and visa fees and the impact that this may have on families and young people. The draft order maintains the reduced health charge rate for children, but the Government remain clear that migrants must pay the health charge when they make an immigration application and should plan their finances accordingly. The cost of the health charge and application fees are available online and should not come as a surprise. However, it is also recognised that, in some instances, people who are required to pay the health charge may not be able to afford it. In such instances, on family and human rights immigration routes and where it is backed by clear and compelling evidence provided by the individual, the health charge may be waived.
Where a fee waiver application is successful, the application fee and the health charge will be waived. Migrants who are granted a partial fee waiver are required to pay the application fee only; the health charge is waived in full. All the information about fee waiver applications is publicly available on GOV.UK and has been for a long time.
Evidence suggests that migrants are aware of the fee waiver process due to the volumes of migrants on eligible routes utilising fee waiver applications. For example, in the year ending September 2023, there were 46,470 visa fee waiver applications, which I would argue does not constitute “hardly any”. The Government are also committed to supporting vulnerable cohorts; there are a range of exemptions from the payment of the health charge, including for individuals in protected cohorts. That includes asylum seekers, looked-after children and victims of modern slavery and trafficking. This draft order extends the range of exemptions to migrants applying to the statelessness immigration route and to the Ukraine regime. In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about the statelessness route, it is basically for migrants who are unable legally to reside in any other country—so very similar to refugees.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The Minister has just correctly defined statelessness and protected cohorts. To those who wrote the Explanatory Memorandum, all this is perfectly obvious, but for people like me and many others who read it, it would be extremely helpful if, instead of putting “protected cohorts”, they could add “such as” and do the same for “statelessness”. It would be helpful if that was done sometimes in an Explanatory Memorandum.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very strong case for footnotes, and I hope that my officials are paying attention to that.
On the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the deterrent effect on migrants, the UK continues to welcome talented individuals from around the world who want to study and work here. It is difficult to isolate the impact of the health charge increase on visa demand, due to the 2020 increase coinciding with the Covid pandemic and EU exit, but evidence from visa applications over the period following the increase to £624 does not suggest any significant impact on application volumes. Visa application volumes are monitored and there remains a substantial demand for visas across the majority of the immigration routes. All fee levels across the immigration system, including the health charge, are kept under review and evaluated where appropriate.
The Government’s science and technology framework sets out 10 key actions to achieve the goal of becoming a science and technology superpower by 2030. The global race for science research, technology and innovation is becoming increasingly competitive. The Government are committed to making the UK the best place in the world to work for top scientists, researchers and innovators, and we are delivering the biggest increase in public R&D investment, including training our next generation of doctoral and post-doctoral RDI talent, having already committed to investing £20 billion in R&D in 2024 and 2025.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I know that we are not discussing this today, but I referred to the increase in the income threshold to £38,500. If that is the case, why was it set at that level, when post-doc salaries start at £35,000, immediately making that important group of people unable to come here?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I was about to say that the Government launched the global talent network in 2022 to support recruitment of exceptional talent in priority areas, such as artificial intelligence, with direct support and information on attractive opportunities in the UK. The noble Baroness is right that this question is not germane to this instrument. We dealt with the increase in salary levels last week. I cannot remember the precise exemption for doctoral students, but there was a PhD exemption.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I will have to come back to the noble Baroness—I cannot remember.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Perhaps the Minister could write to me afterwards. I am talking about post-docs, who arrive with a PhD on a salary of £35,000. They now have a problem because of the level at which this has been set. The point I was making is that this large increase and the other visa fee increases make the whole thing impossible. That is the real worry of universities.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As I said, I will write, because I cannot remember the precise details and I do not want to say anything that I will have to correct.
It is also important to highlight that, although current comparisons can be made, other countries do not have healthcare systems that are directly comparable to the NHS. However, when comparing the total healthcare costs and the costs as a proportion of salary, analysis shows that the health charge at its new rate is broadly equivalent to that in Germany.
We are not trying to deter migrants and reduce net migration by increasing these charges. The health charge simply reflects the cost to the NHS of providing health- care to health charge payers. It supports the sustainability of the NHS. It is not a tool to reduce net migration. It is a public sector fee and cannot exceed the cost of providing treatment for health charge payers. The health charge cannot be used for any purpose other than to fund healthcare for health charge payers.
Migration volumes have increased since the current health charge rates were introduced in 2020. The direct impact that the health charge increases have had on migration are difficult to determine due to the factors that I mentioned earlier and the impact of the Covid pandemic coinciding with the recent increases, but they certainly do not appear to be statistically significant, although that is probably over-egging it a little.
Regarding the Government’s assessment of the impact of the current rates of health charges on visa volumes, no formal review has been undertaken to assess their impact on immigration. That is partly due to the 2020 increase having coincided with the pandemic and EU exit. However, we monitor visa application volumes, which have been at record highs, as noble Lords will be aware, across the majority of immigration routes. All fee levels across the immigration system, including the health charge, are kept under review and evaluated where appropriate. To answer the specific question about price elasticity, it is basically about migrants’ willingness to apply for a given visa given an increase in price. This is derived from published academic research. I can provide links as required.
In terms of impact assessments, we have considered this; a full regulatory impact assessment estimating the impact of the IHS increase was published alongside the legislation. The Government have considered the impact that increases to the health charge will have on visa volumes, as I said. The regulatory impact assessment published alongside this estimates the potential impact on visa volumes using different scenarios. The Government have considered the impact that the health charge increases will have on specific types of immigration. The regulatory impact assessment estimates the impact on migrants and visa volumes for each individual liable route. As I said, the immigration health surcharge is not a net migration policy. The published regulatory impact assessment provides estimates for the potential impact on visa demand under different scenarios.
I think I have answered most of the questions asked of me. I will write on those that I have not answered and the specific points raised during the debate. I finish by saying that the NHS was founded to care for every citizen in their time of need. We have to cherish and preserve that principle, but it is right that migrants granted temporary permission to be in the UK make a financial contribution to the running of NHS services available to them during their stay. On that basis, I commend the order to the Committee.
Sentencing Act 2020 (Amendment of Schedule 21) Regulations 2023
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellamy
That the Grand Committee do consider the Sentencing Act 2020 (Amendment of Schedule 21) Regulations 2023.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, around a quarter of homicides in this country are domestic homicides, where one spouse or partner, or ex-spouse or ex-partner, is killed by the other. In recent years, there has rightly been a considerable focus on these tragic cases. We have had a number of particularly tragic instances, such as when Poppy Waterhouse and Ellie Gould were killed by their ex-boyfriends in 2018 and 2019 respectively, and that of Sally Challen, who killed her husband after years of domestic abuse and whose conviction for murder was replaced by a conviction for manslaughter in 2019.
The law of murder in such cases is currently being reviewed by the Law Commission at the request of the Lord Chancellor. Today, we are concerned not with the law itself but with sentencing. The statutory framework for sentencing in murder cases is to be found in Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020, replacing earlier legislation, as supplemented by guidelines of the Sentencing Council. However, hitherto, nothing in Schedule 21 has specifically addressed domestic homicide.
In the light of all this background, in 2021 the Government asked Clare Wade KC to conduct an independent review of domestic homicide sentencing. The Wade review was published in March 2023, and the Government’s final response was published in July 2023. Today’s instrument takes forward Clare Wade’s recommendations 5 and 8.
Regulation 3 of this statutory instrument deals with a murder that has occurred where there is coercive and controlling behaviour in a domestic context by the offender. It provides that such behaviour will be an aggravating factor for the purposes of paragraph 9 of Schedule 21, which sets out the statutory framework for dealing with aggravating factors. The instrument further provides that, where the situation is the other way round, and the coercive and controlling behaviour has been on the victim’s part—typically, where it is the woman who has killed the man—the fact that the woman has killed having been subject to coercive and controlling behaviour shall be a statutory mitigating factor for the offender subject to such behaviour for the purposes of paragraph 10 of Schedule 21.
In addition, regulation 3 of the draft instrument implements recommendation 8 of the Wade report, which deals with a situation known in shorthand—and, I must say, completely inadequately described—as “overkill”. This arises in cases, particularly at the end of a relationship, where the offender, typically the man, kills the woman in circumstances of extreme violence, defined in the instrument as “sustained and excessive violence”. That too will be a statutory aggravating factor. As I understand it, some 40% of domestic homicide cases occur at the end of a relationship, when the rage and anger are so intense that these very unfortunate and excessive situations arise.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister while he is introducing the regulations. I am slightly worried that there is confusion over the ending of a relationship, which was a separate recommendation of the Wade report that is not dealt with in these instruments.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for that intervention. There is a further aspect of information that I would like to share with the Committee to deal with the very point the noble Lord has raised, for which I thank him.
I have explained the statutory instrument before us, but I need to complete the picture for the Committee. In the Criminal Justice Bill, which is already before the other place, there is a provision that deals explicitly with murders committed at the end of a relationship, defining it as in itself an aggravating factor. Your Lordships may well ask whether it seems a little bit piecemeal that we have this statutory instrument and something in the forthcoming Bill. That point was quite understandably made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its consideration of this instrument. What happened was that the two recommendations that we are dealing with were accepted in the Government’s interim report by the previous Lord Chancellor, and when the present Lord Chancellor succeeded to the post he thought that we should go further. Therefore, it is in the forthcoming Bill.
However, that is not quite the end of the story—this is a continuing story—so I tell your Lordships for information and by way of background that there is another aspect of the sentencing exercise called the starting point: the level of the “tariff” at which you start. For these kinds of domestic murders, the Government commenced a consultation in November to consider the possible reform of the provisions dealing with the starting point in Schedule 21 to the 2020 Act. I should say that these developments are in response to continuing concerns by stakeholders, particularly victims and their families, about the response of the law to these very difficult cases. The Government are listening to those concerns and continuing to address the issue. However, as I indicated, the statutory instrument before us adopts the two recommendations of the Wade report. I therefore commend the instrument to the Committee and beg to move.
Lord Beith (LD)
I am very grateful to the Minister for his introduction and his helpful and illuminating response on the matters that I raised in my intervention. As he said, these regulations carry out the intention to address murder related to domestic violence and coercion. The intention was expressed in Schedule 23 to the Sentencing Act 2020 and follows the Clare Wade report. We support these provisions, which take into account the context of controlling and coercive behaviour in relationships, treating them as an aggravating factor in sentencing for murder or, in the case of a murder by a victim of a controlling relationship, as a mitigating factor.
The regulations introduce the concept of overkill—a word which bothers me as much as it did the Minister as being inadequate to describe the use of violence in excess of what would have been required to kill the victim—as an aggravating factor, not least because of the deeply distressing impact of some of these horrific murders on victims’ families.
However, I have some concerns. I begin with those raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, one of which has been referred to by the Minister. The reference to consultation with the Sentencing Council blandly and misleadingly fails to mention the council’s concerns, including about the wording of the overkill provision. The Explanatory Memorandum should explain using all the relevant facts. It should not obscure by omission. I presume the revised wording has met some of the council’s concerns, but I would be grateful for some clarification of that as it was raised quite forcefully by the scrutiny committee.
The scrutiny committee also questioned the failure to include other provisions proposed in the Government’s response to the Wade review. We had a helpful explanation from the Minister that things are moving on and that the new Lord Chancellor has indeed taken up the concerns and included them in draft legislation. Indeed, I was a bit surprised by the Government’s defence that the earlier omission of some of the recommendations was because these statutory instruments were an interim response, but I will not criticise further because there is obviously progress on that front. I rather agree with the committee that
“in general, it is better policymaking to make all related changes at the same time”.
More than that, I argue that it makes for more coherent legislation if you put things in the same piece of legislation.
In supporting these provisions, I must, however, make clear what they cannot do. In the first case, they cannot and should not remove the judge’s ability to take into account all the relevant circumstances of the case when passing sentence. Justice should not be blind or deaf to the many different issues that may emerge in evidence or in mitigation. The judge must justify deviation from the guidelines but must be free to do justice.
Secondly, we should not deceive ourselves or the public with the pretence that these provisions will have a powerful deterrent effect. Justice has many purposes, including punishment and rehabilitation, but deterrence is scarcely a major factor for this kind of crime. Someone who, having used enough violence to kill the victim, carries on to inflict more violence is not going to think, “Oh, I’ll get a slightly longer sentence, won’t I, because of that statutory instrument?” That is not the real world; it is not the mindset of those who would carry out such terrible and vengeful acts.
That brings me to my final point. For the murders we are talking about, the murderers need in many cases to be imprisoned for long periods for public safety, including the safety of other potential victims of the same kind of crime, but adding a few more years to the sentence may only marginally, if at all, add to public safety and will do nothing to protect safety when they are eventually released. The extra years are added to recognise the greater severity of the offence, and we add them because they are almost the only means we know of recognising that severity and marking it with a more severe penalty. It would appear ethically bland if we treated different murders in exactly the same way, but what we actually do is allocate significant resources to keeping somebody in prison for a bit longer in a hopelessly overcrowded prison system, in which resources are desperately needed for rehabilitation to reduce the risk of reoffending when offenders are released.
As a society, we need to look for more effective ways of recognising and challenging crimes of varying degree and asserting that they will not be tolerated, otherwise we are condemned to endless sentence inflation because sentences for one crime affect sentences for another. It will not be long before comparison is made between these crimes and some other crimes and an argument for longer sentences for them. We have a problem as a society in finding ways of recognising the greater severity of some crimes than others that do not simply commit resources in an ineffective way when those resources are needed to secure public safety.
As I said, we support these provisions, but room must be left for judicial discretion and there must be some recognition that we do not cure crimes simply by passing statutory instruments such as this.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. The Labour Party supports these regulations.
As we have just had explained to us, the instrument introduces two additional statutory aggravating factors and one additional statutory mitigating factor in the determination of the minimum term relating to the mandatory life sentence for murder. The new aggravating factors are the fact that the offender had repeatedly or continuously engaged in behaviour towards the victim that was controlling or coercive and the use of sustained and excessive violence towards the victim. The new mitigating factor is the fact that the victim had repeatedly or continuously engaged in behaviour towards the offender that was controlling or coercive.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their important contributions. I venture to suggest that we all in many ways share an analysis of the nature of the problem and that we are working, I hope collaboratively, to arrive at solutions on very difficult issues.
I will deal in so far as I can with the various points made. I can tell your Lordships that there was a very full exchange with the Sentencing Council. As I understand, it was concerned among other things with exactly how “overkill” is defined, or that sort of point. The question is: how far should you go into all that in the Explanatory Memorandum? Maybe it was a bit skimpy; if so, the Government will take that very much into account. However, the Sentencing Council’s views have been fully taken into account and they are reflected in the instrument. I do not anticipate any disagreement from the Sentencing Council’s point of view with this statutory instrument.
Secondly, as both noble Lords have rightly said, these regulations do not in any way cut down the discretion of the judge in a particular case to consider all the circumstances that he thinks fit. They will always take into account all relevant circumstances, but they provide important statutory reinforcement of the approach that should be made in domestic homicide cases. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, rightly said, and as I think is common knowledge, we have had domestic violence cases as a substantial proportion of all murder cases for years and years—probably for centuries. However, we have become much better informed. I nearly said we have also become much better equipped, but I do not quite mean that; we have become much more able to understand the situation—I will put it like that—and draw appropriate conclusions than perhaps has been the case in the past.
As I think I said in opening, this is still work in progress. We are still working on aspects of this—on sentencing and, in due course, we will be working on aspects of the law of murder itself, whether we should have just one law for murder, or ways of distinguishing better between different circumstances. That, I think, is a question for another day.
On the general question of sentencing, I want to say, respectfully, that I acknowledge the force of the careful remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, on this issue. I think, respectfully, that today is not the day for a general debate on sentencing policy, but we have very difficult issues in this area. There are always the questions of public safety, deterrence and rehabilitation, but there are also questions of public outrage and anguish. How do we deal with those?
From a personal point of view, it is very nearly impossible to disregard public outrage and anguish as factors in the circumstances when the court comes to consider what it should do. That is a fact. We are certainly in a situation where, for some time now, sentences have been growing longer. That has produced pressures on the prison estate, which have been further complicated by Covid and by the increased numbers of police officers, who are arresting more people than they were before. We have all sorts of things to deal with. These are difficult matters, which will merit full debate on another occasion. I have endeavoured to deal as far as I can—otherwise, I hope your Lordships will forgive me—with the points made this afternoon. I commend this instrument to the Committee.
Legal Services Act 2007 (Approved Regulator) Order 2023
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellamy
That the Grand Committee do consider the Legal Services Act 2007 (Approved Regulator) Order 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I have to confess that I struggle to find anything interesting to say about this statutory instrument.
Under the Legal Services Act 2007, the Legal Services Board oversees various approved regulators for persons providing legal services. They are designated under Schedule 4 to the Act. In 2009, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants—ACCA—was designated for the regulation of probate activities. It did not embark on any regulatory activities until 2018, when it found that the uptake was extremely low: it granted authorisations for probate to only 99 persons. At that point, the association discovered that the costs of regulating were very high and it therefore determined that it would withdraw from that activity. It applied to the Legal Services Board in October 2021 to cease to be designated as an approved regulator. The Legal Services Board approved that request on condition that the 99 persons already approved had either ceased to practise or been transferred to another regulator, mainly CILEx Regulation. That condition having been fulfilled, the Legal Services Board asked the Lord Chancellor to regulate the situation by removing the designation of the ACCA under the Act. This statutory instrument now rounds off that process and terminates its authorisation, which is to all intents and purposes redundant anyway. I beg to move.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, it is indeed difficult to find many interesting things to say about this instrument, except perhaps that it has taken more than two years to get to this point after the ACCA decided that its members did not want to be either engaged in or regulated in respect of probate work. However, I have a question about CILEX that puzzles me.
The transitional arrangement is that some people will be or have been transferred to CILEx Regulation. CILEx Regulation is itself the subject of a consultation, which ended in November, because it has been proposed that it should be transferred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority—a much larger body. What will that mean? Will accountants, or staff of accountants’ offices, be transferred to CILEx Regulation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, or will some other transitional arrangement be made for them? The Minister is studying his papers; I hope he has an answer to the question.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beith, has done much better than me, because I could not find anything of interest to say, so I will say nothing.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I think I have only one question to deal with, on the transitional arrangements for the 99 persons with whom we are concerned. My understanding—I will write to the noble Lord if my understanding is wrong—is that these persons have already been or are being transferred, so they are subject to an appropriate regulatory structure.
There is an issue in that there is some kind of dispute between CILEX and CILEx Regulation, which regulates it. That is an ongoing matter that will be resolved in due course by the Legal Services Board, or perhaps it will recommend a solution to the Minister. As I understand it, it is not appropriate for the Government to comment at this stage on how that will be sorted out. CILEX wants to be transferred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, whereas CILEx Regulation is resisting that. It is an unresolved, ongoing dispute that is separate from the issue we are discussing, but the Government’s position is to stand away from it while the regulatory bodies sort it out between themselves. I do not know whether I have managed to approach the noble Lord’s question—
Lord Beith (LD)
I thank the Minister for his helpful answer. It would be helpful to have reassurance from the Government that, in so far as there are still people from this background engaged in probate work, they will continue to be regulated and know by whom they are regulated.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
As far as I am aware, I can reassure the noble Lord that they will continue to be regulated appropriately. If there is any further information that I need to convey, I will write to noble Lords accordingly.
House of Lords
Introduction: The Lord Bishop of Winchester
European Political Community Summit
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask His Majesty’s Government what preparations they are making for the fourth European Political Community Summit, to be held in the United Kingdom in spring 2024.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I was glad to hear the Foreign Secretary refer to the European Political Community as one of the important fora for the UK. I ask the Minister—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Apologies. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for sharing the second part of his Question; it is always good for a Minister to get early warning. The UK values the European Political Community as an important platform for co-ordination on European issues. The EPC enables European leaders to come together to tackle shared challenges, from the war in Ukraine to achieving energy security to tackling illegal migration. The UK has attended all three summits so far at Prime Minister level. We are continuing to consult partners about the UK EPC summit and will make an announcement in due course.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I presume we are chairing this meeting as we are the host. Does that give us particular influence over the agenda? Does it imply that our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary will be visiting some of our major partners in Europe in the coming months to ensure that the meeting goes well? If it is in May or June and it looks as if the Republicans are ahead in the US election campaign, this will clearly be one of the main multilateral fora for British foreign policy. What preparations to involve the country and inform the public will there also be beforehand?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I think that many countries will be seized with elections next year—about 60 regional and national elections are planned. I can assure the noble Lord that both my noble friend the Foreign Secretary and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who attended the last summit, are focused on strengthening our partnerships on important issues including the war on our continent in Ukraine. The EPC has shown a strong ability to co-ordinate and to be very vocal in our unity of purpose and action on such important issues.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord stressed the importance of security in discussions at the summit. With the war in Europe, it is even more vital that we discuss those issues. As the noble Lord knows, I have asked this question before. Are the Government prepared to use this summit to propose a new UK-EU security pact, as advocated by Labour, to complement the work of NATO to ensure that we properly address those security issues with our nearest partner?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
There are several issues the noble Lord has now caveated when asking me questions by saying “as advocated by Labour”.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Well, it is always good to be prepared, but do not count your chickens before they are hatched. To quote a former Baroness, “We fight on, we fight to win”. We will continue to be resolute.
In all seriousness, the EPC is an informal gathering of leaders, as the noble Lord knows. We remain very much focused. The agenda is important. It is not just on security. The noble Lord will be aware that previous EPC summits have discussed important issues of security, particularly energy security. I think that the whole of Europe, and indeed the world, is seized of the importance of energy security for the medium and long term.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will be aware of the discussions about collaboration and co-operation with the EU on defence and security matters, known as PESCO, which have been ongoing for over 12 months. There have been concerns about openness and transparency in respect of that agreement. Is the Minister satisfied that there will be sufficient scrutiny and oversight by Parliament during the ongoing discussions and on the final agreement that is reached?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
One of the points my noble friend has raised—my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been clear on this, as have other members of the Cabinet—is the importance of the sovereignty of the British Parliament on a range of issues. While we value strengthened co-operation and engagement on a raft of issues, including those we have with the EU when it comes to European multilateral co-operation, it is important that the sovereignty of Parliament is always prioritised.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, Russia and Belarus will not be participating, which is right, because a thread within the three EPCs has been human rights and the consistent message to support the European Court of Human Rights and re-embolden the Convention on Human Rights. The Minister will recall that the first topic in the first EPC was immigration. Will the Foreign Office be advising our European friends that, in response to immigration challenges, they should bring forward legislation on whose front page the Minister responsible cannot certify that it is consistent with the obligations that we have to the convention?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will be watching the debate in the other place with great attention and, of course, immigration is very much the remit of my colleagues in the Home Office. The United Kingdom has stood steadfast on the issue of human rights, and it is important that we continue to do so and that the legislation brought forward rightly gets tested by our own legal system. I think the Government’s record has also shown that even where we disagree with decisions taken by our courts, we adhere to them. That adherence to the rule of law is an important strength of our United Kingdom.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the first three EPCs have been great successes and that that success has largely been born not of what is on the agenda at the EPC but in the fact that leaders of the 47 countries now concerned are able to meet to discuss matters even on a bilateral basis? Can he confirm that, because it is very important for people to hear it around the place? Secondly, do we have any plans for developing the EPC beyond where the first three got to?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
On the noble Earl’s second point, this is a new organisation which was put forward by the French President and we supported it. I agree with him on his first point as well: that we have seen the convening of leaders. It is not just the formal agenda—if there is such a thing—because this is an informal meeting. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, alluded to illegal migration, and at the last summit Prime Minister Sunak and Prime Minister Meloni were able to meet to tackle some of the key issues that impact not just our country but Europe as a whole.
Lord Cormack (Con)
To follow up the question just asked by the noble Earl, will the Prime Minister be conducting a series of bilateral conversations and, if he is doing that, will he include at the top of the list the new Prime Minister of Poland?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am not the diary manager for the Prime Minister—but you never know with the extension of mandates, roles and briefs. In all seriousness, I can speak quite specifically, as I know that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary is very seized of the importance of strengthening our relationship with our key European partners, and I am sure he will be focused on the agenda issues of artificial intelligence and the war in Ukraine. These are important issues not for our country alone, not just for Europe but for the world as a whole.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned migration, as did other noble Lords. Can the Minister indicate what tangible result has come from the discussions on migration at these summits?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, they provide an opportunity for agreements to be put in place, such as the UK’s agreements with Albania. Practical suggestions can be shared, and it can be ascertained how successes can be reflected across Europe. It is important when we look at illegal migration to note that there are two sides to the coin. The first is stopping illegal migration, but we also recognise that people migrate to countries for a variety of reasons, including bettering their lives, and some are fleeing persecution. The country that I represent on the world stage has a long tradition of standing up for the rights of the persecuted and that is really where we should be focused. Parties of different colours and different political persuasions have always stood up for that right and it is a proud tradition of our country.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Further to the supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, when the Prime Minister meets other member states, will he discuss concerns that others have about the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights? Will he do so particularly with the French Government, who have announced that they will disregard such rulings and have already begun to do so by sending an Uzbek asylum seeker back to Uzbekistan even though the European Court of Human Rights said that he would stand at risk torture and death? Can he also ask why they get away with it, but it causes a great rumpus here but no concern to the Lib Dems?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
It has often been said that I have an ever-widening brief, and I am now being asked to speak for the French Government.
I shall not take up my noble friend’s offer, but I assure him of two things. First, we do point out the importance of adhering to agreements. Indeed, the United Kingdom is at the top of the league for adherence to the European Court of Human Rights’ decisions. Notwithstanding the criticisms we often get, the action demonstrably shows that the United Kingdom remains a proud holder of the international obligations that we have signed up to.
Adult Social Care: Staffing
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the report of the National Audit Office Reforming adult social care in England published on 10 November (HC 184), how much of the £265 million allocated to reforming social care staffing between 2022–23 and 2024–25 has been spent so far, and what problems they have encountered in spending the allocated money.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
The Government have made up to £8.1 billion available this and next year to strengthen adult social care provision. Specifically, we have invested over £15 million so far this year in supporting our workforce reform programme. The Government remain committed to our 10-year vision to put people at the heart of care and make long-term sustainable investment to future-proof the sector. Further announcements of support will be made shortly.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply. He will know that the NAO’s report said that only £19 million of the very welcome £265 million that was originally allocated has thus far been spent. Even if the Minister does not agree that this is an utterly inadequate response to the crisis in social care, as the King’s Fund has said, he must admit that the slowness of progress is somewhat frustrating. Is it because there are not enough staff in the DHSC to distribute the money? I understand there are about 100 vacancies. Alternatively, is it because there have been many ministerial changes in his department, or because—as many in your Lordships’ House will suspect—social care is simply not a priority for this Government and, once again, millions of unpaid carers will be left to prop up a crumbling system?
Lord Markham (Con)
I share the noble Baroness’s concern about the speed of deployment. At the same time, it is fair to say that we are developing a whole new set of social care qualifications, which we think we can all agree are key to this. We are also developing a whole new payment mechanism, because there are 17,000 independent providers and we need a mechanism to allow payment. It is a complex programme, but I agree that we need to do everything we can to speed it up.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, a key part of the equation for long-term social care sustainability is charging reform, yet the National Audit Office report points out that the Government have scrapped their charging reform programme board and have no overarching social care programme in place. Can the Minister confirm where responsibility for charging reform now sits, and whether we can expect any progress in this critical area in 2024?
Lord Markham (Con)
Charging reform is still part of the Government’s commitment. At the same time, I think we all recognise that, largely as a result of the pandemic, we had to stabilise the social care situation first. That is what the £8.1 billion in funding has been all about and what the investment and recruitment have been for—so that we can stabilise first. I am glad to say that we are reaching a more stable footing. For the first time, staffing went up over last year and, likewise, the number of people in social care went up. We have to stabilise before we move on to the reform. I think we would all agree that the speed of reform needs to be a bit quicker, but it is sensible that we stabilise the situation first.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, in the Government’s search for long-term sustainable funding for adult social care, what assessment have they made of the successful models that operate in Germany and Japan, for instance?
Lord Markham (Con)
The shorthand for the German system is the “double doughnut”, which tries to give wraparound care. We can learn many things from that system, which is why a part 2 reform needs to happen here. I accept that we are clearly not there yet.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, is not the truth of the matter that the Government have just shuffled off responsibility on to local authorities? Can the Minister tell the House what percentage of expenditure by local councils is now being spent on social care to fill the gap, at the expense of vital local services?
Lord Markham (Con)
My noble friend is correct: on average, it is about 74% or 75% of a local authority budget. I think we would all agree that that is not a good situation, because obviously a local authority has a number of matters it needs to deal with. This is one of the issues around long-term reform that we will need to consider.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, we are very familiar with the pressure on the social care workforce. As the Minister pointed out, we have seen vacancies fall within the social care sector, which is very welcome, but that is supported by the recruitment of 70,000 staff from overseas. I am glad that the health and care sector is exempt from the new visa charges, because we are clearly reliant on assistance from overseas. However, given that they are no longer able to bring dependents on their visa, have the Government considered the impact that this will have on recruiting workers from overseas into the social care sector?
Lord Markham (Con)
We have tried to adopt a balanced approach here. While we all understand the necessity in the healthcare sector, I think most of us would agree that 750,000 net migration is a very high number. The balance we have struck is to protect this sector. Our figures generally show that we will be able to keep the recruitment coming. We are now moving on to part 2 of the reform, through the other things we are doing, particularly around qualifications—we know that people who are qualified are far more likely to stay in a social care setting. That is what the whole investment is about. It will be rolled out next year and will fund hundreds of thousands of places. I think it will make a real difference to the motivation, recruitment and retention of staff.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, to respond to the right reverend Prelate’s question, if I may, the Migration Advisory Committee has said that the reason we recruit so many people from overseas is poor terms and conditions in social care. The Government set the market for social care, through their poor funding of local authorities. When will they grasp the nettle and realise that we actually have to give care workers decent pay and conditions?
Lord Markham (Con)
It is absolutely understood that, to have a highly motivated workforce, you need to look at everything—pay and conditions, and training and motivation. We see that while, on average, staff turnover is almost 30%—which is way too high—about 20% of care home providers have a turnover of less than 10%. Why is that? It is because they are investing in their staff and they have a training programme. That is why we are trying to do a similar thing. The national care certificate that we are putting in place will take time; for it to be valuable, we will need to put the right things in order, including the digital platform to pay the 17,000 providers. These are all parts of the reform, which will make a difference.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that many delayed transfers of care from hospital are associated with difficulty in getting social care in people’s own homes? In rural areas, we are still not paying for time spent travelling. Surely there is something we could do much more quickly, before the training certificate, to employ local people in a fair way to provide care in people’s homes, particularly in rural areas.
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness is correct about that; it is a key pillar of this reform. This is why we have tried to learn one of the main lessons from last year, by putting the £600 million discharge fund out early, so we can get those sorts of measures in place. That is why we have expanded the virtual care ward network to 10,000 beds, with the idea that people can be cared for in their own home but with support from the staff there. That is absolutely the direction we are moving in.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said a moment ago that three-quarters of local government spending is on adult social care. I would ask him just to check that figure, because if we add to it children’s social care, it basically means that every local authority will, before long, be issuing Section 114 notices. It is very important to get the facts absolutely clear here. What the Minister said demonstrates that local authorities are seriously underfunded for adult and children’s social care, and are cutting other public services as a consequence.
Lord Markham (Con)
I will absolutely clarify the number to the noble Lord in writing. It is of course a range, according to different local authorities, but I think we would all agree that it is a level that, as a percentage, is too high.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
The Nuffield Trust has called the NAO findings a
“damning indictment of the Government’s progress towards delivering social care change”.
To follow on from my noble friend’s question, the NAO points out that only 7.5% of the much vaunted £265 million allocated by the Government to addressing social care staff shortages and recruitment for 2023-35 has actually been spent, heavily impacted by the DHSC’s staff recruitment freeze. What specific actions are the Government taking to address this and ensure that the money they say is there is actually paid out?
Lord Markham (Con)
There were five parts to the programme of reforms mentioned and the £265 million. There was international recruitment, which we have done; it has worked well, and we need to continue doing that. The second part was a volunteer programme, which, again, we have done and it is working well. Thirdly, there were digital skills passports, so that staff could swap from place to place and take their qualifications with them; we have done that. The two other things will take longer. The care workforce pathway is out for consultation. It will mean that people can have a long- term qualification that can get them into other professions as well, such as nursing. Lastly, there is the care certificate qualification. That takes time. Everyone knows that, for that qualification to be meaningful, it will take time to set it up. That is the key expense item. The digital platform is going to be launched next June, so it will be rolling out from there.
Bovine Tuberculosis
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Colgrain
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards identifying a vaccine for eradicating bovine tuberculosis.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming and land management interests as set out in the register. A candidate vaccine, CattleBCG, has been identified. The Animal and Plant Health Agency, APHA, has also developed a companion candidate test to detect infections among vaccinated animals. This represents a major scientific breakthrough. Field trials are ongoing and, if successful, will move us closer to being able to vaccinate cattle in England against this insidious disease. Deploying a vaccine against TB in cattle remains a top government priority, but I am pleased to say that vaccinating badgers against TB is already a reality.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his positive and most encouraging reply. Bovine TB devastates both emotionally and financially those farmers who find that their herds contain positive reactors. It also hangs a Damocles sword over those neighbours who fear infection contagion, as we are experiencing with the current ever-expanding TB cluster in Kent. I ask my noble friend to agree with me that, given that deer are carriers of TB and the national deer herd is at a historical high and still increasing, we must accelerate all preventive measures at pace across all possible carriers, whether by way of the vaccine he has described for cattle or the contraceptive feed that has proved so successful with American white-tailed deer.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of other species that carry bovine TB. Deer are not a protected species so, if evidence emerges that deer are involved in the spread of TB in a particular location, measures can be taken to control the population. In Great Britain, deer are generally considered to be spillover hosts of TB—that is, they are unlikely to sustain the infection within their own population in the absence of infected cattle or a wildlife reservoir.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I declare my interest as a farmer in Cheshire. Badger controls are an emotive issue. Does the Minister agree that where a policy based on science is found to work in practice, care should be taken before abandoning it? Over the four culling years between 2016 and 2023, across three subregions in Cheshire a reduction just short of 51% of herds under restriction was achieved. This is not to be dismissed lightly, when there is in fact little evidence in England of the effectiveness of a vaccine that has operational difficulties. Does it not make sense to allow all areas of England to undertake a cull to control disease in cattle, disease in badgers and stress in rural communities before introducing vaccination?
Lord Harlech (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right on the 56% reduction in incidence in cattle; that was one of the statistics I had prepared for the Dispatch Box. With our culling strategy, we will continue to follow the science. Culling will remain part of our toolkit for tackling this insidious disease for as long as necessary. However, we are moving to the next phase of our long- term strategy, which will also focus on wider-scale badger vaccination as the primary TB control measure in badgers.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, a cattle vaccine will be a very valuable tool in controlling bovine tuberculosis, but it is likely to be several years before it is rolled out. In the hotspots of TB in the south-west of England, there is mounting evidence that outbreaks and breakdowns in herds are being linked to the continuing presence of infected cattle in those herds that are not detected by the current statutory tests. Will His Majesty’s Government urgently support the introduction, as a mandatory requirement, of additional diagnostic tests, which exist and are well proven, to aid the detection of such carrier cattle and their removal from herds? That would expediate the eradication of this terrible disease.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I defer to the far greater knowledge and experience of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, in this area than my own. No diagnostic test for TB or other diseases is 100% accurate. The causes of recurrent cattle TB breakdowns in areas of endemic bovine tuberculosis are complex and manifold. The skin test is useful as a primary screening test and is supplemented by approved, ancillary tests where needed, based on stringent risk assessments. Defra supports the development of new diagnostic tests for TB and encourages test providers to seek World Organisation for Animal Health validation for UK regulatory approval.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, Scotland has maintained its status as free of bovine TB, despite minor outbreaks. It also has a population of badgers and deer. In the past, one Welsh farmer lost 500 cattle to the disease. An outbreak of bovine TB can have a devastating effect on a dairy farmer. Given the density of dairy cattle in the south-west, is it not time for the Government to take a much stronger line on preventing the disease spreading by speeding up the vaccination programme so that farmers can protect their herds and livelihoods?
Lord Harlech (Con)
I take on board what the noble Baroness said and agree with much of it. As we all saw from the pandemic, diseases and viruses do not respect borders. The Welsh Government are pursuing a different strategy and seeing the incidence of bovine tuberculosis increase in Wales; that goes completely against what we are doing. For cross-border livestock trading, this is incredibly worrying—I say that as someone who comes from Oswestry, a market town.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust. I really appreciated the thoughtful contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, on alternatives to a cull; that has to be the way forward. How does the Minister anticipate that the government Bill to ban live exports, particularly given the exceptions that it includes, will tie in to the need to review existing trade standards for exports of vaccinated animals?
Lord Harlech (Con)
Defra is engaging with WOAH, the European Commission and international trading partners. On completion of field trials of the vaccine and the new DIVA test, we will submit a formal application to WOAH as part of the process of gaining international recognition. Many countries worldwide battle with bovine TB and will be interested in developments in England, but I cannot make specific mention of anything that will be included in a future Bill.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, farmers will appreciate what my noble friend the Minister said: the cull will continue, as scientific evidence shows it to be working very well. Can he also comment on the reported increase of ground-nesting birds in areas where the cull has been effected? It has increased biodiversity in those areas.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My noble friend is right to raise this: biodiversity net gain is a key Defra priority. Badger culling has been linked with positive effects in some bird species, although recent studies by the British Trust for Ornithology, looking at the effect of badger culling, have not found consistent evidence for effects of the badger cull on breeding bird populations. Badgers are known to predate bumble bee nests, which is increasingly worrying. The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust is currently conducting research to investigate the impact of badger culling on bumble bee density.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, is it not about time that we put badgers more on the basis of deer—permissible culling throughout the country? People see deer old and diseased, and everybody realises what the problem is. With badgers, they have no idea of the cruelty going on underground with sick badgers, old badgers, badgers without teeth and badgers with broken legs. That is where that love of badgers leads. If we culled them generally, we would know where TB really was in the badger population, instead of just taking it out in these super-big culls.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, as I explained earlier, we are moving to the next phase, a targeted approach to badger culling.
Guyana: Sovereign Territory
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what support they are providing to Guyana in response to the threat of illegal annexation of parts of its sovereign territory by Venezuela.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the UK is fully engaged at senior levels following the recent steps taken by Venezuela with respect to the Essequibo region of Guyana. The actions of Venezuela are unjustified and should cease. We are clear that the border was settled in 1899 through international arbitration. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary made clear our position in a recent meeting and subsequent calls with President Ali of Guyana. We will continue to work with allies and partners in the region and through international bodies such as the UN Security Council, the Commonwealth and the Organization of American States to ensure that the territorial integrity of Guyana is fully protected and respected.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
I thank the Minister for his Answer and declare an interest as president of the Caribbean Council, which has sent three missions to Guyana in the last year, hosted President Ali as a guest of honour in this House, and organised seminars on trade and investment with Guyana. This provocative move by President Maduro—backed by President Putin, of course—reviving a dispute settled, as the Minister said, in 1899, is a blatant attempt to distract attention from his unpopularity at home. The claim is being reviewed by the International Court of Justice, which has urged no action by Venezuela, but the President of Venezuela has said he does not recognise the court—which is standard practice, of course, for dictators and authoritarian regimes. They threaten the free world. What can the Government do, apart from what the Minister said, with Americans, the Commonwealth and any other institutions to ensure that this aggression does not lead to conflict, that Guyana’s territory is protected, and that it has the full support of Britain and the Commonwealth?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I recognise the important work that the noble Lord does with respect to the Caribbean. As he said, we are working through multilateral institutions as well. There was a UN meeting on 8 December. There was also a Commonwealth meeting of Ministers convened yesterday. Again, there was a strong statement from all Commonwealth countries in support of Guyana’s position. I know that, over the years, meetings have been called at the UN on Guyana’s territorial sovereignty and integrity and the UK’s position has been very clear. We have called for immediate de-escalation. This rhetoric cannot be allowed to continue. Another meeting is being convened by Caribbean and Latin American countries later this week, as the noble Lord will know, to which both leaders have been invited, but the UK is very clear. That is why my noble friend the Foreign Secretary has engaged extensively, with Irfaan Ali directly. Indeed, he met him directly in the margins of COP and subsequently has made a number of calls to give that reassurance and strong support.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, given that the present Government of Venezuela have stated that they have always laid claim to this part of Guyana as part of their territory, can my noble friend say whether he or the FCDO has any record of such claims? I must say that it was news to me.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, recognising the important role of my noble friend over many years when it comes to the Caribbean and South America—indeed, we had an enlightened debate only last week on the very issue of South America—the UK’s position has been clear and that is why it is important that the UN restates it. Coming back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, we should come together with multilateral organisations, particularly within the Commonwealth, to underline our strong support for Guyana’s position.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
In that debate, the noble Lord mentioned the UNGA high-level panel meeting and his representations. At Friday’s Security Council meeting there was an opportunity to raise the issue. What further discussions has he had at the United Nations and what action is the United Kingdom going to press for at the UN? We need a clear pathway to ensure that this threatened action is stopped immediately.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Lord will have noted our statement at the United Nations Security Council. I was not there but elsewhere; I cannot remember where I was on that date, but I was somewhere in the world. The United Kingdom is engaged extensively on the issue. Yesterday, the Minister for Development covered the meeting with the Commonwealth Secretary-General, and my noble friend, when he travelled to the United States, had similar discussions with our partners and allies in Washington, together with Secretary Blinken, on this issue. It is important that we stand by Guyana at this time, and I know that His Majesty’s Opposition agree. The position has been agreed and that agreement is long-standing. In Venezuela, there is a lot of political rhetoric and an election next year. We know the status of Mr Maduro. The United Kingdom does not engage with him directly and recognises that he is desperately in trouble in Venezuela. This may well all be rhetoric, but we must be mindful of that to ensure that any action taken gets a unified response diplomatically from across the world.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
Having been in the Essequibo region earlier in the year, I think it right that Guyana pursues this matter through diplomatic routes—the ICJ, the UN and other forums. But the fact is that the Venezuelan military is much stronger. It has tanks, jets and naval assets sourced from Russia, Iran and elsewhere. In addition to the support that the US Southern Command and the Brazilians reinforcing the border are providing, are the British Government willing to commit that Guyana will get defence support from this country should Guyana seek it to deter Venezuelan military aggression?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we have supported Guyana over a number of years. The noble Lord raises a valid point. I assure him that we are very much seized of the issues of protecting the sovereignty of Guyana. I do not want to go into what may happen. The United Kingdom, including its military assets, is engaged around the world but, for now, we are very much focused on the diplomatic channels. We are urging all partners with leverage over Venezuela and its Administration to ensure this does not escalate, and that is where our focus is.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, is this not a rather chilling example of what happens when big countries start bullying small countries when the rule of law is disregarded generally and people feel that they can grab what they like out of the international order? Will my noble friend accept that this kind of unfolding anarchy is precisely why we obviously should stand firm with our friends in Ukraine? We should leave no doubt at all that these kinds of illegal acts must be stopped, because each one allowed through will produce a dozen more.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, Nelson’s favourite defence negotiators in Europe were a squadron of British battleships. Unfortunately, we do not have as many military assets as we used to. Does the Minster agree that this sort of aggression, or what looks as if it will become aggression, should be stood up to? We cannot allow Ukraine and now this from these Putin-like people, but we need military forces for that. Does the Minister not think that we ought to put a little more money into our military forces?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I am sure that my noble friend Lord Minto has taken note of the noble Lord’s final point. I agree that we are proud of our military, which has stood by countries such as Ukraine. As I said in response to an earlier question, we have assets around the world that we deploy for life-saving missions for humanitarian causes and to ensure that the security of the rules-based order that we adhere to is sustained, maintained and strengthened.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, Guyana is the only Commonwealth member in South America. I read the Commonwealth ministerial group communiqué, to which the Minister referred; it endorses the position of the UK as a member of that group. However, if the Commonwealth is to be relevant for its only member in South America, what practical next steps can it take with regard to the follow-up from the CMG meeting yesterday?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have answered that in question in part. It is important to recognise the role of our Caribbean partners. The meeting being convened is reflective of the unity between Latin American, South American and Caribbean countries, as is the fact that it is being hosted as it is. The noble Lord will be aware of the role of Barbados in looking more to the long term and internally on Venezuela and the situation there. Stability and security in Venezuela are key to ensuring stability and security in the wider region.
Lord Swire (Con)
The meeting will convene on Thursday in St Vincent—at which, we hope, the presidents of Venezuela and Guyana will be present. Can my noble friend give any indication as to whether the Commonwealth Secretary-General will also attend that meeting?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I seem to be taking on the role of diary secretary for a number of people at Questions today. The short answer is that I am sure she is considering the important role of the Commonwealth. The convening power of the Commonwealth is in the incredible 50-plus nations that come together, but this meeting is taking place within the context of co-operation between Latin America and the Caribbean nations. I am not aware of the Secretary-General’s attendance but, if I hear that it is confirmed, I will share it with my noble friend.
Business of the House
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to three repeats of Urgent Questions asked in the other place. It may be opportune for me to draw your Lordships’ attention to paragraph 6.11 of our Companion as to procedures on such Questions. It is a matter for the usual channels whether the initial response or statement is repeated; obviously, it is available in the Hansard of the other place if the repeat comes on a following day.
The important thing is that these are Questions, not Statements. If I may say so, I have noticed one or two recent experiences where there have been quite prolix interventions, not only from the other side but from the Government Benches behind me. It is to the advantage of the House if we can get as many interventions as possible from noble Lords—for example, nine or 10—in the 10 minutes allowed for these Urgent Question repeats. In a recent instance, only five Peers got in. This business is under Question procedure, not Statement procedure.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I fully endorse the comments of the Leader of the House. These are called Urgent Questions—the clue is in the title.
Former Afghan Special Forces: Deportation
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, 200 special forces are unable to leave Pakistan or are under threat of being returned there. They fought alongside our troops. Why have we let them down, and why are they facing deportation back to face the Taliban? Why can they not come to this country under the safe passage they were promised?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
His Majesty’s Government are fully aware of their responsibilities under both the ARAP and the ACRS. They are implementing both schemes to the agreed guidelines at pace, in Afghanistan, Pakistan and here in the UK.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, the UK has a responsibility to relocate these soldiers, otherwise it is likely that they will either die or spend their lives in prison. Will the Minister make it possible for these soldiers to pursue an expedited application process through either the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme or the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, so that they can reside safely in the UK?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
CF333 and ATF444, known as the Triples, were Afghan-led task forces set up to counter drug trafficking and organised crime, and they reported to the Ministry of Interior Affairs. They are therefore a component of the Afghan national security forces and are not automatically in scope for relocation.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, answers to questions on this issue tend to be full of bureaucratic detail and process. This hardly seems appropriate for people who are facing rapid expulsion from Pakistan and almost equally rapid assassination by the Taliban. Why will the Government not set up a mechanism to pursue this issue proactively and urgently, in order to sort it out? If the Minister needs any advice, perhaps he could turn to the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, who has a lot of experience in this area and could point him in the right direction.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I do not disagree with quite a lot of what the noble and gallant Lord said. However, perhaps I may just take a moment to advise noble Lords of the scale of the challenge. There have been 142,000 applications under the ARAP scheme, 95,000 of which are unique—in other words, there are a certain number of repetitions. From April 2023 until the end of August 2023, the bureaucracy coped with 75,000 of those applications. To date, we have settled nearly 14,000 Afghans in this country, and we are hoping to settle another 2,800 by the end of December. There are 2,500 people with approval currently in Pakistan, with whom we have very good relations, and they all have the document which allows them to leave. In fact, 500 were approved last week. While I am not saying that we are on top of it, we are very close to getting there.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
I thank my noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup for probably setting me up to fail. I had the privilege of working with some of these Triples during my own service in Afghanistan and was very involved during my time as Minister for the Armed Forces. I accept that this is not straightforward, but I must add my voice to those saying that we owe an absolute duty to these people and we must sort this out. That said, there are many applications, and a lot of false ones. From our perspective, the biggest challenge seems to be our lack of paperwork and documentation, which is causing the delay. While I encourage my noble friend, as others have done, to do everything he can to support these armed forces personnel, please can we learn the lesson from this episode and ensure that we keep the right documentation in future?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
In the interests of brevity, I quite agree.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House why it is no longer possible to provide a breakdown of the jobs of people applying for relocation under ARAP? It is impossible for us now to tell what the success or failure rate is among members of the Triples, or those who do any other job. After all, for the past 10 years or so and until recently, I have been able to find out exactly how many Afghan interpreters have been relocated. Why is the data not now collected on how many applicants are soldiers, interpreters or anything else?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very good point. The accuracy of the data held on large numbers of people requires double- checking and checking again. At the heart of approval under ARAP is the accuracy of exactly what these individuals did.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, in responding to a question about specific individuals in the other place, the Armed Forces Minister told the House that His Majesty’s Government
“do not have the employment records of the Afghan special forces”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/23; col. 631.]
Today, I was informed by a very reliable source that, until at least August 2021, our embassy in Kabul held nominal records for members of CF333 and ATF444, for the purposes of their “top-up pay”. They were in our employment and, until at least August 2021, His Majesty’s Government held their employment records. Surely, they still exist?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I am not certain that the word “pay” is accurate. I think expense recompense is more appropriate, which is different: you gift something and get something back. If the records are there, we will follow them down. I was not aware that they were held.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister inform the House whether HMG are in direct contact with the Pakistan Government and authorities specifically on this issue, now?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I assure the House that His Majesty’s Government are in direct contact with the Pakistan Government at the very highest level. They are being extremely co-operative about not returning to Afghanistan people who may be at threat as a result of the recent conflict.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned that it is important to follow guidelines to make sure that applicants fall within them. If there are applicants who do not fall within the guidelines but whose lives are clearly in danger, will the Government make exceptions for them?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, ARAP has got to the stage where things are considered case by case. There is opportunity to be flexible within that.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of Reset, as laid out in the register. The British population have a lot of sympathy with these Afghans. What work has been done to learn the lessons from Ukraine and see what levels of community sponsorship might be offered to such Afghans who qualify under these schemes, and to welcome them here? I recognise that this is a Home Office question, so I understand if the Minister needs to write.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
The right reverend Prelate makes a very good point. Since Pakistan changed its method of treatment of its illegal immigrants, we have managed to bring several hundred people back directly from Pakistan. In fact, another 181 are arriving today or tomorrow. They will go into transitional accommodation before they get into their proper accommodation, as was the case before 17 October. We are certainly on the right route with this.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I do not recall the part of the Companion that says that bishops have pre-emptive rights, but never mind. As well as being brief, answers should actually answer the questions put. May I now give the Minister the opportunity to answer the question put by my noble friend Lord Coaker?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, we absolutely respect that these individuals were brave, fought alongside us and gave support when necessary. Guidelines obviously need to be adhered to, because we are not in a position to offer resettlement to every member of the Afghan national forces. There must be limits, and the way in for these particular fighters and their support staff is through ARAP.
Refurbishing Trains: Contracts
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
Alstom’s Litchurch Lane factory in Derby has provided high-skilled jobs for generations, but uncertainty over the UK rail industry and the lack of long-term strategy means that those workers are now in jeopardy. The workers are a national asset. People are one of the scarcest assets in this country; an asset that must be looked after to preserve the capability to lead to long-term growth.
Last Thursday, the Rail Minister in the other place, Huw Merriman, said:
“We will be doing everything we can to assist Alstom in keeping that plant open”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/23; col. 486.]
That is a very hard, precise commitment. Can the Minister tell us what action the Government have taken in the light of that promise?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)
My Lords, we have been actively involved in discussions with Alstom for several weeks on this matter and have held frequent meetings with the company to look at options around its production gap. We will continue to work with Alstom. A cross-departmental task force has been established and officials are meeting Alstom regularly to discuss how best to support employees at risk of redundancy.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, in the past, when a major long-standing employer such as Alstom hit a crisis, the Government used to blame the shackles of EU competition law. Well, we are not bound by that any more, so who will the Government blame now? The truth of the matter surely is that the Government need to provide certainty on the new orders required.
The managing director of Alstom, in evidence to the Transport Committee in the other place, made it clear that one of its immediate problems is uncertainty over whether the Government will pursue the £2 billion contract for all the 54 HS2 trains they have ordered. Can the Minister tell us, here and now, whether that is the case? Will the full order still be required?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. What I can say to noble Lords that manufacturers are ultimately responsible for sourcing work for their assembly plants. There are upcoming procurements in the market being run by Northern, Southeastern, TransPennine and Chiltern. It is a competition process that is open to all manufacturers to bid, including Alstom in Derby. The department is also working with the Treasury to set out a pipeline for expected rolling stock orders, to provide the sector with further clarity over the near term.
Regarding HS2, Alstom are part of a contract with Hitachi to design, build and maintain HS2 trains for phase 1 only.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, may I wish the Government all the best in ensuring a future for Alstom? Who is responsible for ensuring that the overhead electricity wires are fit for purpose? We have seen three outages in two different parts of the country, one of which lasted three days and caused absolute havoc on the east coast main line. This cannot be sustainable. Will the Minister assure us that there is a rolling programme of improvements and refurbishment of the overhead lines, particularly on the east coast main line?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Well, we have been subject to adverse weather, of course. I can, however, assure my noble friend that Network Rail is responsible for overhead lines. I will take her comments back to the department.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think the Minister answered properly the question about HS2. It was, in my view, a disastrous decision made by the Government to cancel the Derby and Manchester links, so can he tell us how many trains were required, had those links still been about to be built, and how many trains are now required, so we can work out the deficit for ourselves? While he is about it, will he please answer a question which his department has repeatedly been unable to answer for me as a Written Question: precisely how much money has been lost—wasted—as a result of the cancellations to which I have referred?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The noble Lord asks two very fair questions. I do not have those details to hand, but I will ensure that he gets them in written form.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, last week in the other place the Department for Transport said that the contract tenders for refurbishing existing trains would be brought forward very soon. Time is short for Alstom, the only end-to-end manufacturing facility in the UK. Can the Minister give any assurances about how soon these contracts will be brought forward, because the days are now being counted down?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I cannot give any specifics in terms of days, but the department is certainly aware of this and will bring it on as soon as possible. I assure the right reverend Prelate that, if I can ascertain exactly how many days, I will write to him with the information.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, it may be my fault, but I have not actually understood whether the current HS2 contract with the company is or is not going to go forward.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The contract with HS2 and Alstom will go forward in terms of phase 1.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister says that there will be investment in the railways. We know that there is money being kept safe from the cancellation of High Speed 2; how much of that is going to be transferred to northern schemes, because it looks quite clear that the Government are transferring money intended for the north down to the south?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
If I am correct, I believe it was somewhere in the region of £30 billion to £34 billion.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, having had a small passion around railways and networks—in fact, the last time we ordered some new rolling stock for London, I was with the then mayor as we brought the S stock trains into London—I have looked at the timelines and supply chains, especially with manufacturers in and across the UK. Does the Department for Transport have a view on what rolling stock may be part of the ordering book when we look at network north plans, and also for plans for the London Underground, which seem to be going a bit slower than they should be?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Well, the department is always talking with rail operators and manufacturers. Of course, rail manufacturers play an important role in growing the UK economy, and there is a strong pipeline for future orders for UK rail manufacturers. As I perhaps alluded to earlier, there are upcoming procurements in the market being run by Northern, Chiltern, TransPennine and Southeastern; this competition process is open to all manufacturers to bid, including Alstom. As I said earlier, the department is also working with HM Treasury to set out a pipeline for expected rolling stock orders, to provide the sector with further clarity over the near term.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, is not here for this, because he is the guilty man, as he was the Minister who privatised the railways in such a chaotic way. As well as the overhead lines and the rails being run by one company, and the actual services by other companies, the LNER reminded me recently that it does not actually own its trains—it only rents them. It is total chaos. I seem to remember that this Government—on their last legs now, but nevertheless—suggested some kind of “Great British Rail” set-up, to try to improve the position. What has happened to that?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
It has been the case for many years that train companies lease their rolling stock, and that still is the case.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, could the Minister unpack the statement he has made, which sounds so very reassuring, that the Government will abide by the contract for the purchase of trains for phase 1 of HS2? Surely, the train manufacturer invested and provided facilities for the HS2 project overall. The same trains of course would run beyond Manchester when the line was extended and, therefore, you cannot mix and match two different sets of trains. Has he looked at the economics of the decision that has been made and understood what the consequences are for the manufacturer with which he is contracted?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I say, in answer to the noble Baroness’s question, that Alstom is part of a contract with Hitachi to design, build and maintain HS2 trains for phase 1 only. Phase 1 of HS2 between Birmingham and London will continue, with a rescoped Euston station. We expect Alstom’s contractual obligations to be honoured with HS2 Ltd.
Israel-Hamas War: Diplomacy
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, we are all agreed: a cessation of hostilities to give space and time to get food, water, electricity and medicine into Gaza is essential. Although Israel has the right to defend itself against terror and bring back the hostages, it must act within international and humanitarian law. Andrew Mitchell said yesterday:
“We continue to identify and look for mechanisms for ensuring that there can be no impunity”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/23; cols. 618-19.]
Does the Minister recognise that the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction to address the conduct of all parties in Gaza? As he knows, I have asked before about whether the Government will match the US and impose travel bans on illegal settlers involved in attacks, serious criminal activity and fostering hatred in the West Bank. Andrew Mitchell also said yesterday that the UK was
“seeking that those responsible should be not just arrested but prosecuted and punished”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/23; col. 614.]
Did the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, discuss travel bans with his US counterparts last week? When can we anticipate an announcement that we will follow suit?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s second question, my noble friend Lord Cameron was in Washington and, as I said last week, there were discussions on a wide range of issues including the situation in the Middle East. The noble Lord will know that I cannot speculate at this time, but I assure him that we are fully seized of the actions the US has taken and are reflecting on what further actions we can take on settler violence. Again, we are very much at one on this. The Government’s position and the Opposition’s is that settler violence must be stopped, but as my noble friend the Foreign Secretary said when he visited Israel and the OPTs, it is not just about stopping the violence; it is also about holding perpetrators to account.
On the issue of the ICC, the UK remains a strong supporter. As a state party to the Geneva conventions, it is also important that Israel recognises its accountability and responsibility. As a democratic Government and a democratic state, I am sure it will adhere to that. On the wider issues of humanitarian routes and access, the noble Lord knows that both my noble friend Lord Cameron and I have been fully engaged. I returned from Doha only last night. One of the key areas we were focused on is the importance of releasing the hostages and getting humanitarian relief into Gaza. We welcome the announcement from Israel on the checking facility at Kerem Shalom. The UK was the first to raise this and we hope that we can restore the full operational capacity and capability of Kerem Shalom to get vital, life-saving aid into Gaza.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister is aware, I too have just returned from Doha, this lunchtime. During my visit, I met separately with the Prime Minister, the assistant Foreign Minister and the Minister of State, as well as the Jordanian Foreign Minister. All those discussions covered the need for opening up and providing immediate life-saving humanitarian assistance. From these Benches we stress our repeated call for an immediate bilateral ceasefire to stop the air attacks from the Israeli Government, as well as a period in which all hostages would be returned. That would signal day one of a much-needed political track. It needs to involve moderate Israeli leaders, as well as a reconstruction of a Palestinian entity. What support are the UK Government giving to that much-needed political track, as part of an enduring ceasefire?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we are working extensively on those very points. As I have said before, as friends and allies of Israel we understand its security issues—but, equally, people within Israel and in the wider region understand that for the medium and long term this means security, justice and stability for Israelis and Palestinians alike. We are very much engaged on a range of diplomatic tracks. Together with my noble friend the Foreign Secretary, we have been engaging directly in the region; the Prime Minister has also visited a number of times. This week we will have some inward visits from Ministers within the region. What really needs to happen is what we have talked about before: a revitalised contact route that ensures we understand the current realities on the ground. Both Israel and the Palestinian leadership need to be part of that.
I further assure the noble Lord, on the diplomatic track and ensuring some sustainable agreements, that we welcome—as all noble Lords did—what happened in the pause. That cessation allowed for hostages to be returned. I also agree with him that the release of the hostages is the vital first step to ensuring that we see lasting and sustainable peace in the Middle East.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, should Hamas release all the hostages and lay down its weapons, and should the terrorists who perpetrated the appalling atrocities on 7 October flee to the Gulf to live in luxury hotels with their leaders, would there not be an immediate ceasefire? Peace might be able to come. We could then decide some long-term political future for the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that as a first step, as I have said, the hostages must be released. It is a no-brainer, as far as I am concerned. Those people were taken, so that will be a vital first step. The other issue to recognise is that we have proscribed Hamas as a terrorist group. It is for Hamas to choose its pathway. Does it want to put down weapons and talk peace? Then say so and put that offer on the table. I alluded earlier to being in Qatar. We are seized of ensuring that, in every country, we deliver the vital messages to those who have influence over Hamas. Given the priority of releasing the hostages and bringing a cessation to the violence we are seeing, Hamas needs to lay down its weapons and say that it no longer wishes to continue to attack Israeli interests.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that following the widespread breaches of human rights by both Israel and Palestine over quite a period, it has now become urgent for the international community to bring pressure to bear on them both to replace their leaders with those who genuinely respect the human rights of both communities? Only with such leaders on both sides—it will not do if it is simply on one side —will Israel and Palestine have hope to live in peace in the future.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness agrees that it is for Israelis and Palestinians to choose who leads them, but I agree with the sentiments that she expresses. It is important that we have people who recognise, as difficult as peace is, how a sustainable peace can be possible. That is why we have committed ourselves to revitalising and energising the peace process that leads to the delivery, in practical terms, of the two-state solution—not just one in which Israel and a Palestinian state live side by side in peace and security but one in which there is a recognition that real strength comes from the inter- dependency of people and communities.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, have the Government considered, in conjunction with our friends, sending hospital ships to the region to provide emergency medical help to people in Gaza who are not getting it in their own hospitals?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to raise that. Our discussions with key Gulf partners and directly with Israel are about opening land routes, which are the most effective routes. That is why I alluded earlier, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, to Kerem Shalom. These are six lanes instead of the one lane from Rafah, and we will continue to implore that. I assure the noble Lord that we are looking at all routes, including maritime routes, to provide support and aid into Gaza. We also recognise that where we can provide support we should, whether through supporting countries that have field hospitals in Gaza or through a specific idea that the French have had and that we are exploring, involving vessels that we have currently deployed for humanitarian support and the flexibility to provide support in the way the noble Lord suggests.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, this tragic situation is also caught up in the complexity of the religious faiths of the region. In what way are faith leaders involved in the diplomatic conversations to seek to bring peace?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, to me that is fundamental. There is a unifying factor, which from the Muslim perspective was the prophet Abraham, and we all recognise that. Faith leaders have an important role: they can bring people together as an important part of track 2 diplomacy. I am engaging directly with faith leaders because I believe to my core that faith is about bringing people together, not dividing us.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests, particularly my interests relating to friendship with Israel. Was my noble friend as shocked as I was this morning to see videos of much-needed aid going into Gaza being hijacked at gunpoint by Hamas in front of Palestinian citizens? Given this callous disregard for the interests of Palestinians within Gaza, has my noble friend received any indication from the bloodstained, child-murdering rapists of the terrorist group Hamas that they have even the slightest interest in abiding by any diplomatic initiative?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have not seen those specific videos but I have seen earlier videos about the atrocities and the abhorrent attacks of Hamas. I have already said that we regard Hamas as a proscribed group. It has shown by its actions, and continues to demonstrate, that the welfare of the people of Gaza—the Palestinians and the civilians who are suffering—is not a priority for it. We want to see unhindered access, which is why we are working with Israel and other key partners, including Egypt, to ensure that can happen. We are also working with key partners that have influence over Hamas because it is important to ensure that there is a reality check. This will not stop until it does the right thing. There are the wider issues of the Middle East peace process, which we are also working on, but as a first step it must release the hostages. Let us have a cessation of hostilities. We want to allow unhindered access for aid to reach the most vulnerable, and that is needed now.
National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill
Tuesday 12th December 2023
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2023 View all National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 30 November 2023 - (30 Nov 2023)
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the past few years have been a somewhat unhappy lesson in living through history, be that the impact of a once-in-a-generation pandemic or the shock waves of the largest conflict in Europe since World War II. Covid and Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine have forced this Government to take tough decisions to protect the public purse. Thankfully, the choices we have made are paying off: inflation is falling, this year’s growth is more resilient than expected and debt is forecast to reduce. This makes it possible to pay back working people while ensuring that public money remains sound.
Thanks to this Government’s long-term plan, this Bill will slash taxes for 29 million working people. It has three measures: the reduction of the national insurance contributions—or NICs—class 1 primary main rate; the reduction of the NICs class 4 main rate; and the removal of the requirement to pay class 2 NICs. The measures all fundamentally deliver on a core priority for this Government: allowing working people to hold on to their hard-earned cash. I shall explain each of the measures in more detail.
First, the Government’s changes to the employee class 1 NICs main rate will reduce it by two percentage points to 10% on earnings between £12,570 and £50,270, from 6 January 2024. This is a change that puts working people first. For example, the average worker on £35,400 will see and feel an annual improvement of £450 to their payslip at the start of the new year. An average full-time nurse will see an annual gain of over £520. Families with two earners on the average income will be £900 better off, because this Government believe that hard work should be rewarded.
Our remaining two measures focus on NICs for the self-employed. The Chancellor highlighted the importance of the self-employed in his Autumn Statement speech, commenting that:
“These are the people who literally kept our country running during the pandemic: the plumbers who fixed our boilers in lockdowns, the delivery drivers who brought us our shopping and the farmers who kept food on our plates”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/23; col. 333.]
This fantastic workforce also deserves to be recognised. Of course, to be self-employed you need to be organised, efficient and responsible, and the Government should not get in the way of that. The self-employed want to stand on their own two feet, and the Chancellor stands ready to support this with two tailored interventions. The first is a cut in the class 4 rate by one percentage point, from 9% to 8%. The second removes the requirement for the self-employed with annual profits above the income tax personal allowance to pay class 2 NICs. Those who wish to pay voluntarily will still be able to do so. Both measures will be in force from 6 April 2024.
These changes simplify the system for self-employed taxpayers, bringing it closer to the system for employees. These measures mean that a typical self-employed plumber will gain £410 a year. The Government intend to fully abolish class 2 NICs, reducing needless complexity and freeing up valuable time. Further detail about this reform will be set out next year. As a result of changes in the Bill, a self-employed person who is currently required to pay class 2 NICs every week will save at least £192 per year. Taken together with the cut to class 4 NICs, this will benefit around 2 million people. Importantly, those with profits under the small profits threshold of £6,725, and others who pay class 2 voluntarily to get access to contributory benefits, including the state pension, will continue to be able to do so. No low-income, self-employed people who pay voluntary NICs will be asked to pay more.
The Government are committed to tax cuts that reward and incentivise work, and which grow the economy in a sustainable way. The tax cuts in this Bill will be worth over £9 billion a year—the largest ever cut to employee and self-employed national insurance. These measures will give 29 million working people an average yearly saving of over £450. That is fair and that is right. Nor will these measures benefit only those already in work. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, these reductions in tax will lead to an additional 28,000 people entering work, because ensuring that work pays will encourage more people to seek employment. Be in no doubt that we are doing the right thing by standing with the hard-working people of this country and ensuring that their contributions are recognised and fairly rewarded.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, in the era of never-ending real wage cuts, high inflation, high taxes, high interest rates and the cost of living crisis, any help for hard-pressed households is welcome, but that cannot hide the Government’s sleight of hand. Let us remember that last year the Government were prepared to increase the national insurance contribution rate for employees from 12% to 13.25%. They did not really feel that there was any need to help the poorest then. Now that they are doing incredibly badly in the opinion polls, some bribes are obviously coming out and this 2p cut is just one example.
Of course, people will not be fooled by the bribes; they will remember what the Government have done to them. Since March 2021, the income tax personal allowance and thresholds have been frozen and will remain frozen until 2027-28 or maybe even beyond. In 2022, the UK had a tax-to-GDP ratio of 35.3% compared to the OECD average of 34%, and it is going to get worse because of fiscal drag: millions more people are going to be paying income tax and national insurance contributions because of that.
Since March 2022, the threshold for national insurance contributions has also been frozen. Due to the impact of inflation on VAT, higher duties, income tax and national insurance, the additional tax yield is expected to be around £57 billion in 2027-28. This shows that the Government’s claim that they are handing things back to the people is really a work of fiction. The cut in the main rate of national insurance for employees from 12% to 10% and changes in rates for the self-employed will hand back, according to the OBR, £2.2 billion in 2023-24 and £9.4 billion in 2024-25, rising to £10 billion in £2028-29. That is a total of nearly £50 billion.
What are the Government going to collect through national insurance contributions for the same period? According to the OBR, despite the cut in the rate, they will collect £62 billion—£12 billion more than the cut they are handing back. That is all because of fiscal drag. Can the Minister explain why the cut in the national insurance contribution rate does not fully wipe out the increase in revenues from the contributions? Whichever way anyone looks at it, this cut is part of an impression management exercise. It is a small part of the additional taxes that the Government have already collected and will continue to collect.
In line with their usual practice, the Government are handing a lower amount of the national insurance cut to the less well-off and more to the rich. The annual median wage for an employee is £29,669, so a median-wage earner will get a cut of just £341 a year. Those earning more will collect far more. The median earners will still pay a higher proportion of their income in national insurance contributions than wealthier individuals: the Resolution Foundation concluded that the Budget favoured the richest 20% of earners. It will be interesting to see whether the Minister wants to deny that.
As people in London and the south-east of England tend to have higher wages, they will collect a bigger national insurance cut compared to the rest of the country. Due to the Government’s failure to address regional disparities, inequalities will now be widened. In the last tax year, 21 million adults had a taxable income of less than £12,570 and, as a result, were not liable to pay any national insurance contributions. Due to fiscal drag, that number is now around 19 million. The national insurance cut delivers zero benefit to 19 million adults, the majority of whom are women. This includes families who have been robbed of nearly £3,000 a year by the Government’s two-child benefit cap. As usual, the poorest are invisible to the Government. Can the Minister please explain the impact of the national insurance cut on regional and gender inequalities?
The national insurance cut provides little comfort to most families. Savings for median earners are immediately wiped out by the higher price of food, energy, transport, interest rates, mortgage payments, rents and council tax—there is no benefit. The Resolution Foundation estimates that, due to sluggish economic growth, persistent inflation and higher taxes, the average household will be £1,900 a year poorer by January 2025, compared to December 2019—that is a real legacy of the Government. There is no redistribution or levelling up; nothing in the Bill matches that.
The Government could have helped the 19 million adults receiving zero benefit from the national insurance cut by abolishing VAT on domestic fuel, or by cutting the standard rate of VAT, but they chose not to do that. The cost could have been met by clawing back the benefit of the 2% national insurance cut from the richest individuals—for example, by making the national insurance contribution rate more progressive for individuals on higher incomes. Patriotic Millionaires have urged the Government to tax them more, but the Government do not even want to do what the rich are urging them to—possibly because those rich people are not in the Conservative Party.
In case the Minister is tempted to say that the Government have helped the poor by increasing benefits, I remind her that the real value of benefits has fallen since 2010. The Government could have addressed the anomalies in the national insurance contribution laws. For example, there is no economic or moral reason for exempting capital gains, dividends and investment income from national insurance payments. The individuals enjoying exemptions use the National Health Service and social care system, but do not pay anything towards them. If a rich person with capital gains has an accident, a taxpayer-funded ambulance and the NHS would come to the rescue, so why do they not pay national insurance contributions? What is the moral and economic justification? The Government could have raised billions of pounds by eliminating that anomaly.
The Government could also have hit the tax avoidance industry. I know many accountants who are busy converting incomes to capital gains so that certain individuals not only pay tax at a lower rate but dodge national insurance contributions. The Government have done absolutely nothing to deal with that. Of course, getting rid of the tax avoidance industry helps with economic efficiency as well, but again the Government are oblivious to that. Can the Minister explain why investment income in the hands of comparatively few people continues to be exempt from national insurance payments? What is the justification for this? If she wishes, I would be delighted to participate in any debate that she might wish to call on this.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab)
My Lords, I will make a short intervention in this debate to ask the Minister a few questions about the allocation from the National Insurance Fund to the NHS following the introductions of the measures in the Bill.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that 19% of the National Insurance Fund is paid directly to the NHS. My first question to the Minister is, will she confirm that that percentage is correct? When Governments quote figures going to the NHS, they always talk in cash terms, but when we see a reduction in funding for the National Insurance Fund, it is good to know exactly what we are talking about. Will the Minister confirm the percentage allocated to the National Health Service from the National Insurance Fund?
Secondly, will the Minister assure your Lordships’ House that the cash value currently paid in funding to the NHS from the National Insurance Fund will not be reduced as a result of these measures? Would she be good enough, after this debate, to provide the forecast figures for both the percentage and the cash terms of the money paid from the National Insurance Fund to the NHS? Should there be any shortfall, will she give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that that reduction—that loss of funding—will be made good by the Government from general taxation: that it will be earmarked not as extra funding but as replacement funding, should there be any reduction as a result of the measures in the Bill?
I absolutely appreciate that national insurance Bills are incredibly complicated, having dealt with them in the past in another place, so if the Minister does not have that information at her fingertips, which I would entirely understand, I would be more than happy for her to write to me and the relevant spokespersons in the House with those figures. While reducing national insurance has the implications that the Minister has rightly identified, it also has a potential downside, and we need to know what that is. Will the funding of the National Health Service be protected?
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, because the point she raised is one I think we did not raise in our discussion of the Autumn Statement and perhaps did not have the front of our minds as this Bill went through. The link between national insurance contributions and funding of the NHS is critical. In thinking about it, I am astonished that an impact statement did not discuss those consequences, and I do not remember them being raised by the OBR or in other discussion papers. The issue the noble Baroness has raised is critical, and I thank her very much for asking that we all share in the Minister’s reply. Again, I have sympathy for the Minister: I doubt very much whether she has these numbers at her fingertips.
The Liberal Democrat Benches are obviously not opposing the Bill, but I would like to set a bit of context. I shall refer to the work of the Resolution Foundation, quoted extensively by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, which last week published the third and final phase of its report Ending Stagnation and provided us with updated numbers that graphically expose the price that UK households are paying for that economic stagnation. If real pay growth had continued to follow the trend from before the 2008 financial crisis, the average British worker would be £10,700 a year better off—a really significant figure. There are almost 9 million younger Brits who have never worked in an economy that has sustained rising wages. As a consequence of that impact on wages, the UK is now Europe’s most unequal large economy. That used not to be true. Our poorer families are now a staggering 27% worse off than their French and German counterparts. That is a measure we rarely look at, but it is critical. Obviously, when ordinary families are trying to cope with stagnant wages and a cost of living crisis, it is particularly unacceptable for a Government to dress up a rise in taxes as tax cutting.
By 2028-29, the freezing of the national income tax thresholds adds £45 billion a year—not over that time, but a year—to taxpayers’ annual tax bills, offset by the rate cuts we are discussing today only to the tune of £10 billion annually. If this Government were a private company, I suspect that trading standards would have a very dim view of an entity that presented an annual increase in charges of £35 billion as a cut. The public will be none too impressed when they find out the hard way, as I said in the Autumn Statement debate, that a typical earner will pay £400 more next year in tax and NICs after these measures, and a middle-income earner will pay £1,200 more. Like the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, I used that debate to point out the inequality of the distribution of the rate cut, with five times as much going to the top fifth of earners, compared with the bottom fifth. That distribution is a choice. Interestingly, the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs—who is not in his place today, perfectly understandably—described himself in that debate as a struggling self-employed person. When the Government decided that they needed to look most closely at and give most support to the top fifth of earners, perhaps they had the noble Lord in mind.
I note that the NIC rate cuts offer some relief to self-employed workers. This is a group that particularly lost out during Covid. The sector is, frankly, also suffering from HMRC’s harsh and shambolic loan charge regime, which is doing little to stop promoters mis-selling tax products, but is continuing to drive to breakdown and even suicide individuals who got caught up in the loan charge because they followed advice in good faith. To date, as the Minister will know, HMRC has referred 10 suicides to the IOPC, and three more are contested.
We have to change the way we deal with the self-employed sector. I very much hope that the Government will—as they often promise but never actually do—follow through on the 2017 Taylor review, which called for and fashioned principles for the update of working relationships, taking them from the past into today’s world of business. In that, there is new opportunity for the self-employed.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, the Labour Party supports this Bill, and we welcome the cuts in national insurance that it contains. We have long argued that taxes on working people are too high, and that we want them to be lower.
We have been consistent in this view. We opposed the manifesto-breaking increase in national insurance that the Prime Minister tried to implement last year, when he was Chancellor. When he introduced his 1.25% increase in national insurance contributions for employees and employers—his so-called health and social care levy—we described it at the time as
“a new tax on working people and their jobs”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/9/21; col 845.]
When it became clear to him that the Labour Party was correct to say that this was the worst possible tax rise at the worst possible time, he attempted a partial U-turn, and then, eventually, the increase in national insurance was rightly reversed.
Unfortunately for working people, this reprieve to their living standards was short-lived, as it was quickly followed by the Government’s disastrous mini-Budget, which crashed the economy and sent interest rates and mortgage rates soaring. Interest rates have now risen 14 times to a 15-year high of 5.25%, while the average two-year fixed-rate mortgage at one point rose from 2.6% to over 6%. As a result, families re-mortgaging since July have seen their mortgage payments rise by an average of £220 per month. Some 1.6 million families have seen their mortgage deals end this year. Next year, a further 1.5 million families will face a similar fate.
According to the Resolution Foundation, this Parliament is now on course to be the first ever in which real household incomes fall. We are now seeing the biggest ever fall in living standards since records began. The cut in national insurance that the Bill contains is not the full story on tax, nor does it represent the reality that many British people now face.
Despite what the Government would like us to believe, and in contrast to the claim the Minister made in her opening speech that the Government are paying back working people, the reality—as the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Resolution Foundation and the House of Commons Library have all made clear—is that taxes are going up, not down. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, implied, it is important that we are all honest about that point. The truth is that the tax burden will now rise every single year for the next five years, rising to its highest ever level and making this the biggest tax-raising Parliament ever. Indeed, new data published just this week by the OECD showed that the UK’s tax burden has now increased to its highest rate ever on record.
Prior to the Autumn Statement that announced the cut in national insurance we are debating today, the Government had already put in place 25 tax rises amounting to £90 billion and the equivalent of a 10p increase in national insurance. This 2p cut does not remotely compensate for the tax increases already announced. As my noble friend Lord Sikka pointed out, the Resolution Foundation has calculated that, even after this cut to national insurance, households will still be £1,900 worse off.
These cuts to personal taxation are more than eclipsed by increases in taxes that the Government have previously announced. For example, the freezing of national insurance and income tax thresholds for six years is now expected to cost taxpayers £45 billion. This fiscal drag means that nearly 4 million more people will pay income tax and 3 million more people will pay the higher rate. The combined effect is an average tax rise of £1,200 per household.
According to Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the cut in national insurance rates
“pales into … insignificance alongside the … increase in personal taxes created by the six year freeze in allowances and thresholds”.
The IFS has calculated that, extraordinarily, almost every single person in the UK liable for income tax or national insurance will now be paying higher taxes overall. As a result, the tax burden will now reach 37.7% of GDP by the end of the forecast period, an increase equivalent to an astonishing £4,300 of additional tax for every household in the country. This is a tax- raising Government.
The actual lived experience of the British people is not that their taxes are going down; it is that their taxes are going up. The reality that working people face is not that they will be better off; it is that they will be worse off. We should all be honest about that fact. We should be honest, too, about the reasons why: taxes are so high in this country because growth is so low. The UK’s growth record over the past 13 years has been poor by international standards. We have languished in the bottom third of OECD countries, with 27 OECD economies growing faster than us since 2010. Over the next two years, no fewer than 177 countries are forecast by the IMF to grow faster than the UK. For this year and next, we will be 35th out of 38 OECD countries for growth.
The latest outturn figures for GDP show that there was no growth at all in the third quarter of this year. In the Autumn Statement, the Office for Budget Responsibility downgraded its forecast for growth in each of the next three years, so that growth in 2024 is now forecast to be just 0.7%—more than half the 1.8% predicted as recently as the Budget in March. The Bank of England’s view is that even that is too optimistic; its latest forecast shows no growth at all in any of the next three years—no growth this year, next year or in 2025.
That is the economic reality faced by the British people—the reality of 13 years of failure. Growth and living standards are down; mortgage rates and taxes are up. The tax burden will now rise every single year for the next five years, rising to its highest ever level and making this the biggest tax-raising Parliament ever, with an average tax rise of £1,200 per household. While the cut to national insurance is welcome, the British people will conclude that it is simply too little, too late.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this relatively short debate. As your Lordships might expect, I did not agree with all the points, statistics and bits of data that were shared, and I will obviously have my own, but I will try to stick within my wheelhouse and stay within the realms of national insurance today.
However, I want to comment on the general thrust from the noble Lords, Lord Sikka and Lord Livermore, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. It was just extraordinary. I feel really pleased that everybody has now come round to the Conservatives’ way of thinking that taxes are too high, and we need to think about reducing them and we must do so responsibly. I am grateful for that vindication of the Conservatives’ policy when it comes to personal taxes. We agree that they are too high, but of course many of the tax rises that are forecast to come into place—I absolutely accept that taxes will go up, although this national insurance cut reduces them—are already announced and baked into the figures.
I did not hear many noble Lords recognising the reasons why we needed to put taxes up—
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I was very tactful not to point out that the Minister, as with all Conservatives— I think they have probably signed an oath somewhere—did not mention Brexit and the economic damage it has done, which is a fundamental part of all this. In giving the history of the things that have gone wrong, it is best not to lecture the House when the Government are deliberately leaving out one of the key culprits.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I definitely was not lecturing the House—far be it from me to do so. However, it would obviously not be a debate without a Liberal Democrat mentioning Brexit.
I am going to move on from that general observation that I am pleased that there is this political groundswell now back behind the Conservatives for lower taxes, which is excellent—
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but just to back up the Liberal Democrats, it is not just Brexit. As the Minister will know, since 2010, between £450 billion and £1,500 billion of taxes have not been collected due to avoidance, evasion, fraud and error. If only a fraction of that had been collected, the Minister can imagine how the whole country would have been transformed. If the Minister is looking to expand the debate, here is a point to talk about.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Minister is definitely not looking to expand the debate but is trying to make progress. I hear what the noble Lord says, and if he has read the Autumn Statement, which I am sure he has, he will have seen the announcements made in it about tax avoidance.
Moving on to comments made by noble Lords, I think it is probably not worth rehearsing and rehashing the elements around fiscal drag. Again, I want to put some numbers on record, because there is an opportunity to do so. Thanks to the cut in employee national insurance contributions announced at the Autumn Statement and to above-average increases to starting thresholds since 2010, an average worker in 2024-25 will pay more than £1,000 less in personal taxes than they would otherwise have done. That statement has attracted some interest, and I reassure noble Lords that the calculations underlying this statistic are based on public information, including a published estimate of average earnings. They are robust and could be replicated by an external analyst. This goes back to what I was trying to say about data. Lots of people will do calculations on different bases, but at the end of the day, from the Government’s perspective, we want taxes to come down—this is a start—but of course we will do it only in a responsible manner. However, personal taxes for somebody on an average salary of £35,400 have come down since 2010.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, asked about distribution analysis, and the national insurance cuts will of course benefit everybody who pays national insurance. That includes 2.4 million people in Scotland, 1.2 million in Wales, 800,000 in Northern Ireland, et cetera. The latest published HMRC data for 2021 shows that the largest proportion of income tax payers reside in the south-east, followed by London. It will be the case when one has a tax cut that those who pay the largest amount, and the numbers of people who pay tax if they are located in certain areas, are therefore going to see the largest reductions.
However, we have also looked at the impact on women—again, an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. NIC charges apply regardless of personal circumstances or protected characteristics. The equalities impact will reflect the composition of the NIC-paying population. Of course, that feeds into whether we would like women to be paid more. Of course we would. That is why rewarding work will see 28,000 people come into jobs—and I very much hope that they will be well- paid jobs and will be taken up by women.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, talked about better-off households. Distribution analysis published at the Autumn Statement shows that a typical household at any income level will see a net benefit in 2023-24 and 2024-25, following government decisions made from the Autumn Statement 2022 onwards. Low-income households will see the largest benefit as a percentage of income. Furthermore, looking across all tax, welfare and spending decisions since the 2019 spending round, the impact of government action continues to be progressive, with the poorest households receiving the largest benefit as a percentage of income in 2024-25. I know that the noble Lord feels that we do not focus on those on the lowest incomes, but he is not correct in that regard.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
You cannot eat a percentage of income. Going out and buying a loaf of bread costs you just the same whether you are a high earner or a low earner. So, using the percentage of income comparator to understand the cost of living pressures that people are living under and who is getting the most benefit is not the appropriate measure. If you use the cash number, you realise how much purchasing power arrives for people at the bottom end and how much more purchasing power arrives for people at the top end. That is the appropriate benchmark.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I absolutely accept that the noble Baroness is right to say that you can look at it in a different fashion but, in terms of whether what the Government are doing is progressive, it is fair to say that people on lower incomes are benefiting, as a proportion, to a greater degree. Of course, the Government have intervened when it comes to cost of living. That has been cash and that is not about percentage of income. It is all around our energy price guarantee, increases to the national living wage and looking at the uprating of benefits, which will rise by much more than inflation is forecast to be next year. So there are lots of different factors to take into account and sometimes one can be quite blunt when dealing with a tax cut that is, frankly, going to benefit 29 million people.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, asked why national insurance contributions do not apply on unearned income. National insurance contributions are part of the UK social security system, which is based on a long-standing contributory principle centred on paid employment and self-employment. ‘Twas ever thus. Of course, a future Government may make substantial changes to that which would again increase the tax burden—but this Government are content that we will maintain the contributory principle.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I hear what she says, but people who have what the Minister calls unearned income—some people may call it “rentier income”, which is perhaps a clearer expression—can still use the National Health Service. If there was an accident, an ambulance would arrive, even though they had not paid any national insurance. If the need arises, they can still get social care. So why are they not required to pay? They simply are free riders. If they paid, the Government could have made an even bigger cut in national insurance.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
This potentially leads on to the next question from the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, about the percentage of mixed receipts that goes to the NHS. It is about 20%; 80% comes from elsewhere. Those people who pay taxes on their unearned income will, of course, pay into the general fund.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
As the Minister knows, the taxes levied on dividends and capital gains are lower than the taxes on wages. If she wants her point to stand, can she explain why capital gains and dividends are taxed at a lower rate than wages? What is the justification for that?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I suspect that we are now moving into an area of debate where is not appropriate to go today, because there is business still to come in the House; I know that my noble friend is desperately waiting to get up.
I go back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo. Obviously, the balance of the national insurance fund is monitored closely. The most recent report from the Government Actuary’s Department—GAD—forecast that the fund will be able to self-finance for at least the next five years. But, of course, the Treasury has the ability to top up the NIF from the consolidated fund when needed. Indeed, this has been done in the past—it was routinely done in the 1990s—so it is not right to say that the cut in NICs puts any pressure at all on any payment to the NHS or otherwise; that is set independently from the national insurance fund.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab)
I do not wish to detain the House but, frankly, that is not the question I was asking. I was asking the Minister about something that she has confirmed: 20% of the 100% that the NHS gets comes from the national insurance fund and it is equated to a cash value. If there is less in the national insurance fund, less cash goes to the NHS. The simple question I asked was not about whether the NHS will still get the 100%; it was about whether the 80% will become 81% or 82%. It is quite a techy point and I do not want to delay the House, but it makes quite a difference to the cash that the NHS receives. I was just asking the Minister to confirm and clarify that; I am not seeking to score any points off her.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to be able to clarify that it is not set on a percentage basis at all. The amount of money that goes to the NHS is set in actual terms; for example, it is £160 billion in 2023-24 and will be £162.5 billion in 2024-25. It has nothing to do with the percentage of anything.
I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on the Taylor review and everything that she raised. That would probably be the most appropriate thing to do.
For the time being, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, now that we have concluded Second Reading, Members have a further hour to table amendments to this Bill. Members wishing to table amendments should contact the Public Bill Office. We will resume proceedings on the Bill at the point shown on the annunciator after the Statement and the debate on the overseas electors regulations.
BBC Funding
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, we on these Benches are clear that the BBC must continue as a universal, publicly owned and publicly funded public service broadcaster, with funding that is both sufficient and sustainable. After flirting with the privatisation of Channel 4, the Government’s somewhat chop and change approach to BBC funding is creating significant uncertainty for our valuable public service broadcasters and the wider creative ecosystem. Have the Government undertaken an assessment of the likely impact of the additional pressure being placed on BBC budgets? Is this likely to lead to more journalist job cuts, disruption to commissions and supply chains, or harm to the organisation’s soft power across the world? If an assessment has been undertaken, will it be published?
The BBC has already scaled back some of its public service output in response to the licence fee freeze. This has seen, for example, local radio services streamlined. From my time as an MP in the other place, I recall how local communities had the greatest trust in local TV and radio stations as a source of news and information. Does the Minister agree with the continuing importance of local provision of news and information at a time when fake news proliferates, particularly online, and when many local newspapers are scaling back their operations? To turn to the national sphere, most recently, the format of “Newsnight” has changed, with its important investigative journalism scaled back and moved elsewhere.
The Government’s desire to focus on the cost of living is understood, but it is their actions which have stretched household budgets to breaking point. Does the Minister accept that this change in how the licence fee is calculated will have a negligible impact on working people’s finances, through a saving of just £4 a year, while having a far bigger impact on the BBC’s ability to fulfil its public service duty and role?
We also understand the desire of the Secretary of State to launch the future funding review. She is, after all, not the first person to have had that idea, but many lack confidence that the process is about getting the right result for the BBC. What steps will be taken to shore up confidence in the review among stakeholders, staff and the public?
We have learned so much from the past few years about what it means to be a resilient society, not least because of the pandemic, when the BBC really came into its own, not just as a broadcaster but as an educator, a trusted source of information and a connector. The Government’s resilience framework promises a direction of travel which incorporates prevention, preparedness, response and recovery, no matter what the disaster. Can the Minister indicate whether there has been consideration of the impact of the BBC’s funding on all these aspects of resilience?
Our great broadcasting institutions, their employees and the wider creative sectors that they do so much to sustain deserve far better than they are getting currently. Labour, on the other hand, will work with, rather than against, the BBC and other public service broadcasters to grow our creative industries and ensure that all parts of the UK benefit from their output. That is the essence of public service broadcasting.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, in 2022, the Government made a firm commitment that, after two years of freezing the licence fee, they would allow it to rise for the following four years according to the rate of inflation. The BBC kept its side of the bargain, despite having to make heavy cuts. The Statement repeated here today makes it clear that the Government have not. The Government’s excuse—that their below-inflation settlement is about helping with the cost of living—will not wash. The difference between an inflation- linked settlement and the actual one is 45p per month, yet this will deprive the BBC of £400 million over the next four years, causing enormous damage to an institution already reeling under successive cuts by this Government. There are more direct ways to help those who are trying to deal with the burden of inflation and increased energy bills.
What does this mean? It means less investment in the nation’s creative industries, fewer jobs created nationwide, more job cuts at the BBC and, almost certainly, fewer journalists dedicated to checking facts and reporting impartially, which is so important in the world of the internet. The BBC feeds into the Government’s levelling-up agenda, making programmes across the country while boosting local economies and utilising local skills—except that cuts to BBC local radio, already in train, mean that the spotlight on the local level is increasingly dim and will grow dimmer, thanks to today’s Statement.
As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, another casualty is investigative journalism. I used to work on “Newsnight”; we criss-crossed the UK and the world seeking out stories and telling them in depth, not just reacting. Now, it is another current affairs programme shunted off to an existence solely in the studio. As my former colleague Michael Crick—he may not be the favourite person of some of your Lordships, but he is one of mine—noted:
“If I were a dodgy politician or a crooked businessman or a lazy civil servant, I would rest a bit easier in my bed”.
I mentioned the world. International reporting is already shrinking, and believe me it will shrink further. Just look at how the terrible events in the Middle East have led to Ukraine virtually disappearing from the airwaves. Major events have been occurring in Afghanistan, Sudan, Myanmar and Latin America: we hear nothing. Bringing the world to domestic audiences is so important. As a consequence, we are more equipped to understand, connect and empathise with what is going on beyond UK borders. Ignorance is not a good idea. It is fed by the echo chamber of the internet. Does the Minister not agree?
Of course, the BBC is not just about journalism, important as that is. It is the backbone of our world-beating creative industries and the single largest investor in original UK content operating in the UK. Innovation is often overlooked. It was the BBC that came up with the idea of television. My noble friend—if I may call him that—Lord Birt was behind BBC Online and the BBC has continued to lead, with the likes of the iPlayer and BBC Sounds. It led on rolling out the digital switchover and created two consumer platforms to help make online TV available to all UK audiences. Every £1 of BBC R&D spend alone contributes to £9 in value beyond. Can the Minister explain why this is not something to support?
Then there is soft power. Through the World Service and the programmes the BBC exports, it is central to promoting the UK around the world and is the envy of the world. The Government’s integrated review, published this year, boasted correctly that the BBC is
“the most trusted broadcaster worldwide”.
Considering all these positives, have the Government assessed the impact of these unexpected cuts on the BBC? Can the Minister say where he sees them coming from and what he would be happy to do without?
Finally, on the announced review of the BBC’s funding model, it is of course appropriate that the funding model for the BBC should be investigated, but does the Minister think it is right for the Government to do so without any public consultation and in the space of a few months? Who will be on the expert panel and how will they be chosen? These Benches have long proposed that the funding process, as well as the appointment of the BBC chair, should be taken out of government control and handed to a genuinely independent body. As David Attenborough said:
“The basic principle of public service broadcasting is profoundly important. If we lose that we really lose a very valuable thing”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Baronesses for their questions. I was not clear from the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, whether the Labour Benches are closed-minded to the future funding model of the BBC and wedded to the licence fee model. Nor was I clear from the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, whether the Liberal Democrat Benches think the rise for licence fee payers ought to be higher.
What we have done this year and since the beginning of 2022 is, initially in 2022, agree a funding settlement with the BBC, which froze the licence fee at £159 for two years. That has already saved households £17 over this year and last. Under the terms of the settlement, the licence fee must now increase annually in line with CPI but, because of the decision we have taken to calculate this using the annual rate of CPI in September, rather than a rolling six-month period, the increase will be kept as low as possible.
In April the licence fee will therefore rise by 6.7% to £169.50 annually. That is an increase of just 88p per month, as opposed to a rise of £14.50, which would have happened under the previous way of measuring CPI using an average of the 12 months preceding September. We have done this because we recognise that household budgets remain under pressure. This decision, alongside the two-year freeze, will save individual licence fee payers more than £37 by the end of 2024. It will also ensure that the BBC is provided with more than £3.8 billion to continue to produce the world-leading content for which it is rightly renowned across this country and the world. That is a fair deal which provides value for money for the licence fee payer, while ensuring that the BBC can continue its important work and play its important role in our national life.
The BBC has made a statement about the impact of the decisions as it sees them—the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asked about that. It is of course for the BBC to make its decisions about how it spends this £3.8 billion, but we are providing it with a significant cash uplift that will support the corporation in delivering its mission and public purpose and continue to deliver for licence fee payers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, was right to highlight the work that the BBC does across the country reporting on the lives and interests of people across these islands, as well as the important work done by the BBC World Service across the globe. That is the world’s largest international broadcaster and plays a hugely important role providing accurate and impartial news, analysis and discussion in more than 40 languages to more than 360 million people around the world every week. The Government strongly support the BBC’s mission to bring high-quality impartial news to global audiences, particularly in places where free speech and the freedom of journalists is limited. We will consider how the topics that the future funding review will explore apply to the funding arrangements of the BBC World Service and to the important work that the BBC does in broadcasting in minority languages here at home in the United Kingdom.
The next steps of the funding review will include appointing an expert panel, engaging with interested parties and commissioning research. The review will aim to report to the Secretary of State by next autumn. The findings will inform the charter review, which is where any final decisions on changing the BBC’s funding model will be made by His Majesty’s Government. Given the commercial sensitivities, the findings of the review will remain confidential until the review has concluded. Decisions about the membership of the panel will be made by Ministers, but we will ensure that the panel incorporates a broad range of views. Its role will be to provide advice and external challenge to the review, so that we can consider the best way to equip the BBC with the income it needs to continue the important work that it has done for more than a century, and that we look forward to it continuing to do in an increasingly complex media landscape. It is vital that it is able to continue doing that for the reasons the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, highlighted about the contested news sources we see and have debated many times in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I quote the current Secretary of State: the BBC
“needs to live in the real world”,
and
“We can’t keep putting prices up for the licence fee”.
What is actually happening in the real world? In the last three years, while the licence fee has been frozen, the price of Netflix has risen by 50%, Disney+ by 83%, Apple TV by 40%, and spend on the NHS, excluding Covid costs, has risen in the same period by around 12%. In the period 2010-20, the BBC had to cut spending by 30%. After two years flat, there is a further drop in real terms of something like 12%. Against that backdrop, frankly, this new settlement will be but a drop in the ocean.
It is recognised the world over that the century-old BBC is one of the greatest creations of our times. No other country in the world has so effectively captured its national experience, cultural expression and national dialogue, viz: the exquisite “Planet Earth”, “Horizon”, “Dad’s Army”, “Fleabag”, “Little Dorrit”, “Happy Valley”, “Gardeners’ Question Time”, and the Proms— I could go on and on. The BBC still makes wonderful programmes, but—
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, the Companion is very clear that, in the Back-Bench portion of Questions on a Statement, noble Lords are encouraged to make their point and ask a question.
Lord Birt (CB)
I hope noble Lords will allow me to come to a conclusion. I can see all too clearly how much the BBC has diminished in every area of programming since my time as director-general. Last year, the previous Secretary of State tweeted:
“It’s over for the BBC as they know it”.
Let us name the game; the BBC is a victim of the culture wars and, as a result, we are witnessing the long, slow, painful, diminution of this great institution. Will this continue?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I must disagree with the noble Lord. We want to ensure that the BBC continues to be able to do its work over the next hundred years just as brilliantly as it has over the past century. That is why we are trying to find a settlement that is fair for licence fee payers, who bear the cost at the moment, but which is also good for the BBC, sustainable for the long term, and supports the BBC in its important work.
The noble Lord drew attention to the rising cost of other service providers. He is right to do so; it highlights what a good deal people get when they pay their licence fee and get to enjoy the work of the BBC. Of course, the number of households holding a TV licence fell by 400,000 last year, and has declined by around 1.7 million since 2017. We want to ensure that the costs are not borne by an increasingly small number of people. Of course, people are consuming television, including on the BBC, in different ways. That is why it is right to look at the future funding model, to make sure that the BBC can continue to do its important work in a very different media landscape over the decades to come.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, we are regularly told that the licence fee is not a tax, but on the other hand it walks like a tax and quacks like a tax. Of course it is a very flat tax, in that it impacts enormously on people who cannot easily afford it. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, has referred to, the BBC is coming under enormous competition from many other forms of media. Surely this settlement is quite generous, looked at in those terms.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I agree with my noble friend. We want to strike a balance that is fair to licence fee payers, who are, of course, facing pressures on the cost of living. We want to show that the BBC, like them, is having to make decisions about how it spends its money in the current climate, but also highlight the brilliant way it spends it, the important work it does and the important role it plays with the output it produces.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I find the Minister and the Government’s position quite confusing. I declare an interest as a former deputy chair of the BBC, and commend the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, and the noble Lord, Lord Birt, for their exposition of the real, parlous state that the BBC finds itself in.
The Minister is saying that he is supportive of the BBC’s role. We have a unique thing in the BBC; it is a jewel in the crown internationally and it provides a huge range of behind-the-scenes and in-front-of-camera services to this nation. Yet the position of this Government has been, consistently since 2010, to squeeze and squeeze the BBC harder. This is at a time when 81% of the households in this country subscribe to multiple streaming services, costing them up to £400 a year, when they are getting a bargain, even with a properly inflated licence fee payment, with the BBC.
I will ask the Minister just one question. When this review of the basis of the funding of the BBC is taking place, is the objective to make sure that the BBC will have adequate funds to do the thing that it really needs to do? That is to help reshape its already changing offering to be relevant in the modern world, both nationally and internationally, and to ensure this jewel in the crown that we have is not destroyed inadvertently by a fruitless debate about the licence fee basis of payment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The review aims to ensure that the BBC’s funding model is fair to licence fee payers, sustainable for the long term and supports the BBC in the vital work it does, including its important role in growing our thriving creative industries. We know that, if we want the BBC to continue to succeed, we cannot freeze its income but, at the same time, we cannot ask households to pay more to support the BBC indefinitely. So, the review will look at a range of options for funding the corporation, including looking at how the BBC can increase its commercial revenues to reduce the burden on licence fee payers.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I am not against a review of the funding model, but that is a completely different matter entirely from the long-term squeezing of funds available to the BBC—which is surely, as has just been said, the central problem. One problem should not be used as an excuse not to solve the other problem.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As we know from previous exchanges, there is the immediate decision about licence fee increases and the settlement that the Government reached with the BBC at the beginning of 2022—which saw the two-year freeze to help house- holds at the time—and the longer-term questions which are right to ask to make sure that we are funding the BBC in a sustainable way, so that it can continue to do important work in the decades to come, which are going to look very different from the BBC’s first century.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, many of us despair at the way in which the Government praise the BBC and yet constantly undermine it. In terms of future funding, is the Minister aware that your Lordships’ Select Committee looked at this and rejected a straightforward advertising funding model on the grounds that it would not provide enough funding for the BBC and would damage other public service broadcasters. It also ruled out a sponsorship funding scheme as well. Will the Government rule out those two options and accept that guaranteeing the universality of the BBC will always require some form of public funding?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I do not agree that providing the BBC with more than £3.8 billion is undermining it. That is a large amount of money for the BBC to do its important work. The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the work of your Lordships’ Communications and Digital Committee. I know that my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston would have liked to be here for this exchange, but the committee is on an external visit today. We will, of course, engage with her and the ideas and work of the committee. As I say, the future funding review will look at such matters as we weigh all that up and make decisions about the best way to provide the BBC with the sustainable income it needs.
Lord Mendoza (Con)
My Lords, the BBC is a thriving part of a much wider creative industries sector. That sector has transformed in recent years and continues to transform. The McKinsey report on the arts sector, which came out last month, described the creative industries as now having reached a £126 billion contribution to GVA, which is exactly equivalent to the entire construction sector, with 2.5 million jobs. This is the universe in which the BBC is now swimming. The expert panel will be looking at a funding model, but is it not slightly strange to have a funding model in search of a strategy? Should not that expert panel also consider what we want the BBC to provide as a public service broadcaster, whether on news—local, regional and international—education, children’s programming and so on? I hope that the expert panel will think more on that as well, so that we do not just have £3.8 billion looking for something to do.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend is right to draw your Lordships’ attention to the excellent report done by McKinsey and published recently, which highlights the successes of our creative industries. They were growing nearly twice as quickly as the rest of the economy before the pandemic. As he knows, the Government are determined, through our Creative Industries Sector Vision, to continue to help the sector grow and thrive. He is also right that the BBC and our other public service broadcasters play an important role in the success of the creative industries. That is why, as I have said, we want to take that into account as we look at the best way to fund the BBC in the decades to come. We want the BBC to continue to succeed as a public service broadcaster long into the future, providing high-quality public service content and supporting our thriving and growing creative industries.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
Will the review look at what the BBC generates for the nation, as well as what goes in? Arguably, it generates far more money than the £3.8 billion, but this cannot be reduced to just an economic debate. Will what the BBC generates in good will around the world and our standing as a nation, because of what it does, be taken into consideration?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I hope the right reverend Prelate can tell from what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in another place that we do appreciate the huge value that the BBC brings to viewers and listeners across the country, as it has done for more than a century. It is because we value it that we want to ensure that it is able to survive in decades to come. We are also looking at how we can support the BBC in that fast-changing broadcasting landscape. We have more than doubled the borrowing limit of the BBC’s commercial arm to enable it to access private finance, so that it can pursue an ambitious commercial growth strategy of its own, which of course will have an important impact on boosting investment in the creative economy of the whole UK.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
The Minister has explained that at the centre of the financial arrangements which he has described is the concept of fairness. If we consider fairness in respect of licence fee payers and in respect of the BBC, we are really talking about apples and pears. Could the Minister explain how the Government balance fairness to the licence fee payer with fairness to the BBC? It seems that there may be a bit of a risk that we end up with a solution that is rather fairer to one side than the other.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
That thorny question is one for the future funding review, but it is important. We want to ensure that the BBC has a sustainable income, but also that the sources of that are fair. I have pointed already to the declining number of people who are paying for a licence fee and the declining number who watch television live. Funding models which are predicated on some of those conceptions of the past will look increasingly anachronistic as we move into the BBC’s next century. We have also seen licence fee evasion rising, so it is right that we look at this to make sure that we are coming up with a good answer to the difficult question that the noble Lord poses.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, have the Government looked at models of public service broadcasting in comparable countries in terms of both international and domestic activities? In the United States, France and Germany the international dimension of Voice of America and so on is publicly funded, but here the international dimension of the BBC has been financially squeezed by the Government in recent years, which is a disaster for British foreign policy.
In France, Germany and the Netherlands the domestic side is also substantially publicly funded, while in the US it is not; it is given over to commercial interests. The Minister will be as painfully aware as the rest of us of the destructive impact that has had on maintaining a national dialogue at the centre of democratic politics in the US; instead, it encourages culture wars. There are powerful commercial interests in this country—the Murdoch press more than anything else—that would very much like to see that happening here, and it is not at all clear that all members of the Conservative Government are still committed to the principle of public service broadcasting.
Can the Minister, as a One Nation Tory and not a member of any of the “five families” on the right, say that he, at least, is committed to the principle of public service broadcasting, which implies a broadcaster that one can trust—the BBC comes out high on public trust in all public opinion polls—and a substantial chunk of public funding?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The whole of the Government are committed to the BBC’s important role as a public service broadcaster. My right honourable friend in her Statement in another place rightly called the BBC “a great British institution” that
“plays a vital role in our culture and creative economy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/23; col. 514.]
As we look at future funding options, we will look at how public service broadcasting is delivered in other countries, both the ways in which that is done and the pros and cons of those models.
The noble Lord is right to highlight that the BBC plays its role in a globally exceptional way. I have already talked about the more than 360 million people who tune into and rely on the BBC World Service for impartial news and analysis. We should be very proud that it is our national broadcaster that people across the world tune into, and we want to ensure that it is sustainably funded for many decades to come.
Lord Hayward (Con)
When considering the financing of the BBC, will my noble friend clearly bear in mind all the issues that have been raised by noble Lords across the House concerning its importance worldwide and its contribution to society in general? However, what concerns me is that the BBC has not looked deeply into other areas to see what can be brought under control. I have typed “apple crumble recipes” on my phone. The first four entries come from the BBC. Why on earth, when the BBC should be providing services worldwide in multilingual circumstances, are we confronted by an organisation that provides food recipes to anyone who wants them and who can get them for free from other sites as well?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I did not know there were so many ways to make an apple crumble, but I am sure my noble friend’s was delicious, however he made it. He is right. The BBC is getting more than £3.8 billion, which is a large amount of money, for it to continue to do the important work that it does. It is up to the BBC to decide how it spends its money, but it is right that it makes sure that it is doing so in a way that would delight all licence fee payers.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I hate to intervene twice—I know it is against the rules and the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, will tell me that I cannot—but I think I am right in saying, and the noble Lord, Lord Birt, will be able to confirm this, that the BBC’s recipes are an entirely commercial venture and are no longer funded from the licence fee.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I have indeed pointed to the extra freedom that the Government have given the BBC to pursue its commercial income, so that it can continue to do its excellent work and be funded in a sustainable way that is fair to licence fee payers, viewers, listeners and indeed bakers.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, given that a full-scale rebellion is under way against my noble friend Lord Harlech’s—
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the time allowed for the Statement has elapsed.
Representation of the People (Overseas Electors etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:37 - Division on Lord Khan of Burnley’s amendment - Ayes: 164 / Noes: 133 - Lord Khan of Burnley’s amendment agreed.
Baroness Penn
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 23 October be approved.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, in our manifesto, the Government committed to removing the 15-year limit on voting rights for overseas electors and we are delivering on that promise. Last year, Parliament passed the Elections Act, resolving to extend the franchise to all British citizens, including eligible Irish citizens, living overseas who were either previously registered to vote in the UK or were previously resident in the UK. The two statutory instruments we are debating flow from that Act.
If approved by Parliament, together, these instruments will make necessary changes, as well as improvements, to electoral registration processes across the UK from 16 January 2024 to coincide with the commencement of the franchise change. To ensure the registration processes are workable for applicants and for administrators, we have worked closely with delivery partners and stakeholders across the electoral sector and have engaged with representatives of British citizens overseas on the design of the process. We have created a process that ensures that our democracy remains secure, fair, modern and transparent.
I will start by outlining the changes these instruments make to the registration application process to enable overseas electors to apply, and to enable electoral registration officers in Great Britain and the chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland to determine their eligibility under these new criteria. These instruments ensure that there are robust processes to verify an applicant’s identity and establish their eligibility to register at their qualifying UK address.
The Elections Act 2022 established two conditions for registering to vote as an overseas elector. Going forward, an individual can apply under the previous registration condition or, if never registered, the previous residence condition. Applicants who have previously registered to vote in the UK should apply in respect of the address where they were last registered, under the previous registration condition. For the first time, applicants previously resident in the UK, but who never registered to vote, can apply in respect of the address where they were last resident, under the previous residence condition. Applicants will, as now, be required to complete a declaration as part of their application. These instruments update the declaration requirements to reflect the new eligibility criteria. When determining an application, electoral registration officers must check and be satisfied of the applicant’s identity and connection to their qualifying previous UK address.
To check the applicant’s identity, as now, the applicant’s national insurance number will be data-matched by DWP. Digital improvements mean that this process will be quicker than the current identity checks. Where an applicant cannot provide a national insurance number, or this cannot be matched, they will be able to provide documentary evidence. This new step, introduced by the instrument for Great Britain, brings the process into alignment with existing practice, maintains integrity and eases the administrative burden on applicants and administrators by reducing recourse to attestations. As now, an attestation from a qualified elector—that is, a statement from a UK-registered elector who is not a close relative—may be used to verify an applicant’s identity where verification by documentary evidence is not possible. To verify an applicant’s connection to their qualifying address, as now, in most cases, electoral registration officers will be able to rely on checks against previous electoral registers. Registers are typically held for 15 years, and we expect they will be retained for longer in future.
Where register checks are not possible, this instrument enables several ways to verify an applicant’s connection to their qualifying address. This includes a DWP data match, checks against local records where available and the power for a registration officer to request several types of documentary evidence, originating from reputable sources—such as the UK Government, local authorities and banks—from the applicant. We have considered stakeholder feedback on documentary evidence available to overseas applicants and have provided flexibility in these measures while ensuring they retain integrity. An attestation from a qualified elector can also be used for qualifying address verification where documentary evidence is not possible. This is in close alignment with the process for verifying the identity of both overseas and domestic electors.
I turn now to the renewal process and absent voting arrangements. Currently, to stay registered, an overseas elector must reapply every year. This instrument implements a new fixed-point renewal process, which enables overseas electors to remain registered for up to three years. In Great Britain, overseas electors’ absent vote arrangements will also be tied to the registration renewal process, meaning that an overseas elector will be able to renew their registration and their absent vote arrangement at the same time. These changes will benefit the elector. Enabling an elector to maintain their registration and absent vote in this way means that, when a parliamentary election is called, the elector’s absent vote can be issued without delay.
This improved process will also support administrators to maintain the accuracy of registers, minimise time-consuming processes and reduce their workload in the run-up to an election. Registered overseas electors will be able to renew their declaration within the last six months of their current registration period. The instruments will ensure that overseas electors are made aware in good time when they need to renew. Electoral registration officers will be required to send a first renewal reminder after 1 July during the year in which an elector’s current registration period is due to expire, with a second reminder to follow a reasonable time thereafter, enabling registration officers to manage the process alongside their other responsibilities.
The instrument applying to Northern Ireland does not amend absent voting arrangements, as electors registered in Northern Ireland are automatically entitled to use proxy votes as part of the existing process.
These instruments maintain the integrity of registration processes, ensuring that electoral registration officers continue to register applicants only when satisfied as to their eligibility. We are setting strengthened requirements for attestors and applying a new limit to the number of individuals an attestor can attest. Within an electoral year, an attestor may in future provide identity attestations only for a maximum of two individuals and, separately, address attestations for up to two individuals. We believe this to be a necessary and proportionate measure that maintains integrity while ensuring accessibility for overseas applicants who can now be attested by any UK-registered elector, not just an overseas elector.
In addition to the changes I have just outlined, these instruments make further improvements to the registration process, making it easier and quicker for eligible overseas applicants by enabling electronic submission of information, including copies of documentary evidence. In some cases, these can be provided at the point of application to speed up the process. Overseas electors registering in Great Britain are also now able to apply for a postal or proxy vote online, following the introduction of the new online application services on 31 October 2023.
We continue to work closely with the sector, including the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Electoral Commission, in preparation for implementation; we will provide funding for additional costs incurred in line with the new burdens doctrine. We are also working closely with the Electoral Commission, which has the statutory responsibility to promote democratic engagement. The commission is undertaking a targeted communications campaign both to engage with British citizens overseas and to promote awareness through their friends and families. My department will work alongside other government departments, including the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, to facilitate the commission’s plans for awareness raising and to amplify its activity through government communication channels where value can be added.
I will address the regret amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley. The Government strongly disagree with the notion that the draft measures for consideration today will weaken the existing robust system of checks that surrounds all political donations. UK electoral law already sets out a robust regime of donations controls to ensure that only those with a legitimate interest in UK elections can make political donations. The rules are very clear: political parties and other campaigners are required by law to undertake all reasonable steps to verify the permissibility of a donation within 30 days of receiving it, and prior to its acceptance. Donations that do not meet the established permissibility tests must be returned and reported to the Electoral Commission. There are also already provisions that explicitly prohibit money being funnelled through permissible donors on behalf of impermissible donors.
Lord Khan of Burnley
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations could dangerously weaken the restrictions on overseas political donations and allow foreign money to enter British democracy”.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. These regulations implement the provisions of the Elections Act to remove restrictions on overseas electors. Overseas voting provides an important link for British citizens across the world. On these Benches, we are clear that those who have a strong connection to this country and their community should still have a say in how they are run. We do not oppose the principle of overseas voting and giving citizens who still have a strong connection to the UK a voice in our elections. That includes people who still have a strong connection to our local services and communities. But we need to consider this carefully and look at the potential impact on our democracy.
By repealing the 15-year residency limit, former residents who are now living abroad will be able to vote regardless of how long ago they left the UK. I am proud to have represented the community and region I grew up in as a Member of the European Parliament. Like many honourable Members in the other place, I know how important it is that those who live in our area, pay their taxes and are part of the community feel represented. As much as we support the rights of overseas voters, it would be wrong if people with little connection to this country—who may have moved a long time ago and not used any services or paid any taxes in decades—diminished the voices of constituents across the United Kingdom. We must consider how we strike a balance in our rules. There are voters who still feel a connection to the UK despite moving away 30, 40 or more years ago. But the policy of removing the cap on this important principle will undermine the balance between enfranchising those people and maintaining integrity in our democracy.
Although we do not think that there is a moral disagreement about some of the issues with votes for life, I fear that the risk of abuse of the system proposed by the Government is far too great. The registration rules proposed mean that some overseas voters require only the attestation of the identity and past location of another overseas voter. We understand that it may be difficult for legitimate overseas voters to verify their identity, but there seems to be a risk of manipulation of the system to allow those eligible for the scheme to have their pick of which seats they want to vote in.
As Florence Eshalomi MP outlined in the other place, some 30 seats were decided by fewer than 1,000 votes at the last general election. While I am sure that very few will attempt to abuse the system in that way, it could have a large impact on marginal seats when votes are added up around the world. Can the Minister assure me that there will be additional safeguards to prevent fraud? I understand that there is a tight limit on attestation and that those attesting for another voter will need to sign a declaration of their truthfulness, which is right—but those measures may not be enough to prevent people trying to abuse the system in a way that could impact the next general election.
Can the Minister stipulate what robust processes will be in place to verify an applicant’s identity and establish their eligibility to register at their qualifying United Kingdom address? What support are the Government putting in place to enable electoral registration officers in Great Britain and the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland to determine their eligibility under these new criteria? The Government should also be more open about how much this change will cost, given that they confirmed to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that there will be additional funding to cover the costs of registering new electors.
The new rules create a huge loophole in our donation laws. The current rules on UK donations mean that those who donate more than £500 must be on the electoral register. We must be honest and say that we cannot pretend that the current system is perfect, but it is an important safeguard against money flooding into our political system from foreign and hostile states. The Labour Front Bench first raised these concerns during the passage of the Elections Act, when my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock pointed out that the removal of the 15-year limit could create a loophole in donation law.
Furthermore, during debates on the National Security Bill, my noble friend Lord Coaker called for greater restrictions on political donations from overseas. In our current system, those on the register have a clear and recent link to the UK. We think that opening the electoral register as widely as the Government are doing today goes far beyond what our current donation rules were set up to do. It will allow those with tenuous links to the UK, who have spent most of their lives in states that may even be openly hostile to our aims, the right to massively influence our system. The reality is that it will be impossible to ensure that the huge numbers of potential donors in our system are not vulnerable to manipulation by hostile actors. There is already clear evidence of attempts by these actors to influence UK democracy, as we have seen in recent days. It will also make enforcement of our rules much harder, given the difficulties that we may face in challenging those who fall foul of donation laws while living in another jurisdiction. The Government know the risks that those hostile actors pose to the UK and our allies. Just this year, we saw the attack on Britain’s Electoral Commission. Has the Minister met with it following this incident?
This Government should instead look to proposals made by the Electoral Commission, which recommended introducing new duties on parties to enhance due diligence and the risk assessment of donations. Louise Edwards, a director at the Electoral Commission, recently commented that the current levels of transparency around donations are “not enough”. The Electoral Commission has called for more laws to help protect parties from those who seek to evade the law, as well as more checks on the identity of donors. It is beyond belief that the Government are seeking to risk opening our system at such a critical time for our world. What would a political party do if, for instance, it were offered a donation of £50,000 by somebody who lives and works in Moscow today? Will the Government introduce a new requirement on political parties to do proper checks on the source of funds?
Changes to the Electoral Commission’s powers under the Elections Act 2022 have left the UK without any body responsible for criminal enforcement of election finance laws. I particularly press the Minister on the fact that no one agency now has enforcement powers over electoral law. Do the Government consider it appropriate for the National Crime Agency to take these powers? If so, will they implement that without further delay? If not, is a department fulfilling this role?
I know that there are British citizens who still feel a connection to the UK, and they will welcome this rule change, but it will also be welcomed by those who want to undermine our democracy and funnel money into our politics. We must not allow that to happen. We must strike the right balance to empower voters without enabling undue influence, but I am afraid that these regulations go nowhere near far enough to do that. Unfortunately, the Government have refused to implement any effective safeguards and have instead brought forward these regulations. I further probe the Minister on how the Government propose to monitor the impact of these new rules. Will they publish regular reviews or statements on the number of new overseas voters? If so, will this include how many have used the attestation route to register? How will we get notified of the number and value of donations made by overseas voters?
The ability to make political donations is dependent on the right to vote, so the change would allow substantially more overseas donations, particularly where the attestation of identity is open to more abuse. We express concern that the changes could dangerously weaken the restrictions on overseas political donations and allow foreign money to enter British democracy. We have therefore tabled this amendment to register our concerns, as this entirely unnecessary risk creates problems for our elections and our democracy. At a time of global instability and significant evidence of hostile states seeking to interfere in UK politics, as well as a lack of public confidence in our political institutions, now is the time to enhance our safeguards, not dismantle them. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and the department will think again, and that all noble Lords will support our amendment to the Motion today. I beg to move.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, there are real concerns about these measures. They include the security of our electoral processes, the risk of undermining confidence in them and, above all, our elections being bought by dark money and illegitimate foreign interference. That is why we support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley.
All parties agree on the principle of UK citizens living overseas being able to vote for representatives in our Parliament, but these statutory instruments do not do much to help them. In the absence of a fixed-term Parliament, there is a very short timescale in our system for conducting a general election. It is really too short to enable many people living overseas to be able to return postal votes. We could have better addressed the issue of UK citizens living overseas through the creation of overseas constituencies, dedicated to representing their interests. They do this in many other countries, including France, Italy and Portugal. Countries such as the US and Australia allow a longer period, of up to a fortnight after polling stations have closed, for postal votes to be returned, enabling many more of their citizens living overseas to participate in their elections. When I raised such issues during the passage of the Elections Bill, the Government lacked interest. This failure means, for example, that members of our Armed Forces serving overseas, or British diplomats working in our embassies, will often remain unable to cast their votes in general elections.
What the Government are interested in is allowing many more donations to come from abroad, without any organisation in this country having any real capacity to verify the original sources of those donations. The absence of any cap on the size of donations will no doubt encourage more donations of, say, £5 million-plus to come from people whose real interests are not in this country. Why should a billionaire tax exile be able to fund a political party in the UK, and who knows where their money really comes from? The Government have clipped the wings of the previously independent Electoral Commission and made criminal enforcement of election finance laws significantly harder. I wonder why. I think perhaps we should be told.
Political parties themselves have very little capacity to scrutinise overseas bank accounts, or to inspect the accounts of companies operating overseas, even if they want to. Earlier this year, the Government rejected an amendment to the then National Security Bill which would have insisted on greater scrutiny of the original sources of donations to parties. I wonder why. The chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, Julian Lewis, supported such an amendment, saying that
“the UK has clearly welcomed Russian money, including in the political sphere … We must protect against covert, foreign state-backed financial donations if we are to defend our democratic institutions from harmful interference and influence”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/5/23; col. 132.]
But this Government did not want our democracy to have that protection. I wonder why. I think perhaps we should be told.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Khan of Burnley, following his excellent speech. I have just one additional point to add to this discussion. The argument is that these are British citizens and they should be entitled to vote. The thing about the way the rules will work in practice is that they will tend to be older voters, many of whom may even be past retirement age.
The issue I want to raise is frozen pensions. I am particularly pleased to see in his place the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, who is the relevant Minister. We have discussed these issues before. We have a Government who seem to think it appropriate for these people to have a vote, but who do not think it appropriate for them to have the pension increases they have paid for. It is a total lottery. If they live in the US, they get pension increases; if they live in Canada, they do not. If they live in New Zealand, they get increases; if they live in Australia, they do not.
The whole system is irrational—as rational as if the noble Viscount came to this House and tried to persuade us not to pay pension increases to people who live in Yorkshire. They are all British citizens; that is the basis of this proposal. My question for the Minister is, what logic is there in giving many British citizens who live abroad a vote if you are not going to give them their pension increases?
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, we were, I think, discussing the statutory instruments that relate to overseas voters and their registration, rather than a range of other matters. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, took us down a series of other paths. I will pick up on two or three of them very quickly. On voter ID, a resolution was passed by this House, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in a previous debate, whereby that process would be reviewed. Equally, the noble Lord made reference to a process that applies in the statutory instrument which is rarely used in this country but is already in law. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that this application should be extended elsewhere.
The noble Lord referred to postal votes in Australia and other parts of the world arriving after the actual polling date. I think I am correct in saying that in many of those domains, such votes have to be date stamped before or on the actual election day, so there is no extension to the election period by that application.
Returning to the SIs themselves, in any process of trying to extend the entitlement to vote, there is a risk that you reduce the level of security of voting. That is inevitable. Whether it is postal votes, an extended period of voting, votes abroad or whatever it may be, there is an increased risk. The question is, how do you find that balance between extension and security of the ballot? These SIs apply the process that was established under the Elections Act a few months ago. Therefore, I do not see a particular issue with them.
On the question of trying to achieve some form of financial largesse, I wish that the noble Lords, Lord Khan and Lord Rennard, had been present—as I think my noble friend Lord Mott and other noble Lords will have been—at meetings of overseas Conservatives, who were certainly not promising vast quantities of money in return for the opportunity to vote. It was just a genuine desire for the opportunity for a vote in a country to which, as the noble Lord, Lord Khan, acknowledged, those people who are most likely to register do still feel committed.
The concentration is naturally on national elections, but we should also be conscious of local elections. As the Pickles report identified, if those have insecure systems, you are far more likely to end up with a corrupt and influenced local authority, many of which have huge budgets, than at a national election, where it would be much more difficult to overturn the result by the levels of registration, which, to be honest, I expect. However, if the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, is taken up—Members of Parliament having constituencies around the world—I am sure that a number of people would be happy to represent Spain, the Canary Islands or France, for example, rather than some of the domains they have in this country. I say that in respect of all sides of the House, not necessarily this side alone.
I will not be supporting the amendment. I approach all these matters with great consideration because they are important, and my reasoning is twofold. First, as I see it, these SIs implement the process that was approved by the Elections Act. They do not result in an undue threat. There are other processes and aspects of election law which are far bigger threats than this. Cyberattacks have been referred to, as has AI in one form or another, along with dubious registration and intimidation.
Two aspects are particularly important. First, as I think Members on all sides of the House agree, electoral law is a complete mess and needs to be consolidated quickly, so that we do not face the problems we do. Secondly, there is the burden imposed on elections administrators, which has also been alluded to. When I was young and an election occurred, you registered and did everything months or years in advance. Now, there is an elections event, which takes place over three weeks, and everything is concentrated into it. We should not underestimate the burden imposed on elections administrators in any number of different ways. If our elections system fails, it will be because our electoral law is inadequately clear—it is a mess—or because the administrators just cannot cope.
It is for those reasons that I will be supporting the Government’s Motion and not the amendment.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, appears to accept that this proposal constitutes a threat to our electoral system, but he says that there are far more severe threats and therefore, among other reasons, he will not support the amendment. I congratulate my noble friend on raising this issue; he is right to do so.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, has done, I would like to point out the danger that this proposal could lead to a vast amount of work for electoral registration officers, as we have seen already. It is certainly quite a weighty SI. I go back in history to the time in the late 1960s when Roy Hattersley first made a concession in this area. Since that time, this thin end of the wedge has been increased and expanded massively.
I would like to hear from the Government whether there has been evidence of fraud as this overseas franchise has developed over the years, and the extent of that fraud. As has been rightly pointed out, the further away you are from the UK geographically, the more likely it is that it is very difficult to verify statements that you make. You can get a friend, perhaps of long standing when you have been abroad for a long time, to do that.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hayward stressed the central point about these regulations: they bring into effect, at long last, the right of our fellow countrymen and countrywomen living overseas to participate in our elections. They were promised votes for life, and at long last that promise will be fully delivered, following the provisions in the Elections Act of last year that these regulations carry forward.
It is an immensely important day for those who have looked forward to it and have campaigned for it. Many of them are in the Conservative Party, as my noble friend referred to, alongside others in this House. I well remember advocating the removal of the arbitrary 15-year limit in my early speeches in this House, 12 years or so ago. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, will recall the legislation that gave rise to those discussions.
It was particularly gratifying last year, when the Elections Act was carried into effect, that among those who were able to note it with approval and rejoice was a quite remarkable figure: Harry Shindler OBE, a long-time Labour supporter resident in Italy following courageous action during the Second World War. He devoted a large part of the peacetime that followed to draw attention to the very unsatisfactory state of affairs and to call for change, year after year in place after place. It was wonderful to celebrate with this great man, aged 101, immediately after the passage of the Act last year.
This measure implementing what was agreed last year brings us in line with so many other countries that give full voting rights to their citizens living in other countries. It has become a mainstream democratic principle, and we are right to incorporate it in our law. The Labour Party, through the noble Lord, Lord Khan, seems to be suggesting that it is au fait with the retention of some restriction in this area. I remind the Labour Party of the view of Labour International, to which it belongs. It said in March 2021 that it urges the PLP and party leadership to support votes for life for British citizens living outside the UK:
“As a democratic party, Labour should acknowledge that many British people living and working abroad still have close connections with the UK and are directly … affected by decisions and actions of the government in the UK”.
I ask the Labour Party to bear that very much in mind.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is well respected in this House for the cogent and clear way she presents material to us, so I listened with great care to what she had to say. While she explained in detail the practical—and, in some cases, quite complicated—details of how this will work, I heard very little about the philosophy underpinning what is being done. The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, just gave us an example of the philosophy of why this is appropriate—the principle of votes for life for citizens—but what we have not heard is the underpinning philosophy of why this solution is the appropriate response to that.
If elections mean anything, they are about local people choosing a local representative to represent their interests in a Parliament, a local authority or whatever else. Here, we are talking about people who have lived overseas—maybe for 15 or 20 years or even longer—so where is that local link and line through which local people vote for a local representative to sit on a body representing their interests? It becomes very blurred. As I understand the proposals, you will, in effect, have a choice. If you have lived overseas for many years but, in your youth, you lived in all sorts of places around the UK, you can pick and choose the constituency or area to which you have affinity. Is that an appropriate way of demonstrating that link?
Some have made jokes about one of the issues, saying that we should have an MP representing people living in the Bahamas. But the principle adopted in other countries is quite clear: it recognises that, after 10, 15 or 20 years, you no longer have the same sort of local affiliation, and it is therefore legitimate that your interests are represented in some other way. For somebody who was last resident in this country 20 years ago, there may well have been several changes in the Member of Parliament for their area—I have lost count of how many general elections we have had in the last 20 years, for a variety of reasons—and they may not have very much knowledge about what has gone on their area. The question then arises as to why it is appropriate for that link to a particular constituency to be allowed.
When the Minister responds to my noble friend Lord Khan’s regret amendment, she needs to address why we are doing this. What is the philosophy that underpins it and, secondly, what is the reason for choosing this particular method of delivering the commitment to lifelong electors? Why are we saying that you have this opportunity to pick and choose—to decide which constituency you might want and whether you will participate in local elections about local services? You will, ultimately, decide the amount of expenditure on refuse collection and other matters. That is no doubt fascinating, but if you have lived overseas for many years, it is difficult to see how you have that affinity and that interest. We have to understand why this particular solution has been taken. When the Minister explains why the option of creating a constituency for overseas residents has not been dealt with, perhaps we can then have some explanation as to whether this has created a significant further loophole in respect of bringing money into this country for electoral purposes. It is difficult to understand why there is this sudden move to do it, and to do it in this way.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very brief, because I know your Lordships wish to move to the vote. I will just follow up on some of the points made by my colleague. The real problem we have is that the 2010 coalition abandoned all the work that Labour was doing on establishing a national identity. If that had proceeded, we would have created a national identity for every individual. We would have known where they were located at the time they left the country, and that would then have been used as the point at which they cast their vote. I address my remarks primarily to my Front Bench. As we prepare our manifesto, I hope we will go back to what we were doing then. We see the problems that we are having with immigration, the failure to know how many people we have in this country and so many areas in which we need a national database. We should have a look at the Indian experience and the way in which India has created quite an amazing national digital identity, and look to see whether we should not have one in the UK to bring ourselves up to date. It would answer many of the problems of this kind of legislation.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I have just one very quick point. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, talked about the fact that I had asked about reviews; when we consider the potential for election fraud, that is really important. The Elections Act was brought in, according to the Government, because they were concerned about shutting the door on fraud. My concern is that this will open the door to more than they will stop.
I will just pick up some of the things the Minister said in her introduction. If there is no national insurance number, there needs to be documentary evidence provided. That will be provided by the applicant. Checks against the electoral register at the moment go only up to 15 years. The Minister said that will be retained for longer in future, but how do we know how accurate it is now? How will we measure that? What analysis will the Government do as this goes forward to check on the potential level of electoral fraud, and how is it going to be reviewed and analysed in future? We need to make sure that the people on the register are those who need to be on the register—especially if that can then lead to donations.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches are in favour of extending the franchise further, but as part of a wider reconsideration of inclusion on and exclusion from the register. I remind the House that we have an estimated 8 million British citizens living in this country who are not on the register—about which something ought also to be done. We are concerned about how this is implemented and some of its unintended consequences. I remind the House that there are 3.5 million British overseas citizens. That is, by my calculation, roughly 5,500 per constituency, if they all registered. If we assume that no more than 50% register, that is still well over 2,000 per constituency. I am sure the Minister will have been briefed that overseas registration in constituencies is not uniform but highly variable. Some London constituencies already have approaching 2,000 overseas electors, whereas a number of constituencies in Wales have fewer than 20. That is to be expected. Next time we redraw the tightened boundaries of our constituencies, do we take into account the number of overseas voters who are registered in various constituencies? If we do, some London constituencies will get quite a bit smaller because the numbers of overseas voters will take them way over the quota.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contribution of all noble Lords to this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Khan, started with some of the principles behind expanding the franchise to overseas electors. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, also asked about that point. The statutory instruments implement changes made in the Elections Act and were debated substantially then—but it is worth touching on those points now.
Currently, around 1 million overseas UK nationals are eligible to register to vote, but only around 230,000 were registered in 2019. By that measure, they could be seen as the least enfranchised electors of any group. In terms of connections to the UK, British expats increasingly retain strong links with the United Kingdom. Many have family here or plan to return here in future. Decisions made by the UK Parliament on foreign policy, defence, immigration, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, on pensions, trade or Brexit affect British citizens who live overseas, and that is why they should have the right to vote in parliamentary elections.
To those who say that it is politically motivated, as we have heard, I believe it is Lib Dem policy to support votes for life, albeit structured in a different way, to establish overseas voters into stand-alone overseas constituencies. It is the view of this Government that it would sever the connection to where the voters previously lived in the UK and create a two-tier system of MPs. So, it is in the interests of UK citizens resident in the UK to be balanced with those living overseas, and distributing electors on the basis of their previous local connection would ensure that.
As my noble friend Lord Lexden pointed out, Labour International also supports votes for life and has addressed some of the questions around this policy in its own words—in particular the point around whether overseas electors are tax exiles or non-doms. Labour International states that
“the vast majority of us are working age or younger and not tax exiles or rich non-doms. Those who are pensioners may have spent a lifetime paying into UK insurance and be dependent on UK pensions and healthcare funding”.
On the connection between paying tax and being eligible to vote, as a matter of principle taxation is not connected to enfranchisement in the UK. If a British citizen can vote for a political party at an election, they should be able to donate to that political party, subject to the transparency requirements on donations. Electoral law already allows registered British expatriates to vote in UK parliamentary elections and make donations. The Elections Act and these statutory instruments make no change to that principle. They merely amend the overseas franchise.
To expand further on the concerns raised by the noble Lords, Lord Khan and Lord Harris, about applicants potentially fraudulently choosing their constituency or registering in more than one location, as now, overseas electors will be entitled to register in respect of only one UK address. The Elections Act 2022 puts in place clear rules regarding where British citizens overseas may register. It must be the address at which they were last registered or, if they were never registered, last resident. As now, their connection to that address must be established before they are added to the register. Individuals applying in contravention of those rules will be providing false information and may have committed an offence. They will be penalised accordingly.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
How will they be penalised? How can a sanction levied in this country be imposed abroad?
Baroness Penn (Con)
Well, as under the current system, all overseas applicants need to prove their identity and their verifiable connection to a UK address. A broad range of offences and penalties applies to persons seeking to register. If the applicant is not registering in compliance with those rules, an electoral registration officer who suspects fraud, for whatever reason, will ask them for further information and will not register the individual if they are not satisfied. So, there may be different routes to enforcement, but the key point here is whether people would be able to get on to the register using inaccurate or fraudulent data. That is what we have put protections in place to prevent. Registration officers are experienced in assessing evidence and, as I have said, as now, when they suspect fraud, they will have the power to ask for further information.
The noble Lord, Lord Khan, also asked about the process for using—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Has the Minister ever visited an electoral registration officer’s office? Does she realise how small the numbers of staff are? The idea that they can take on all these checks, even outside the short election campaign when they are always extremely busy, does seems a little optimistic.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I will come on to the question of resources and implementation later in my response but, as I said at the start of my speech, the expansion of the franchise does not change the principle of the franchise. People who have been abroad for up to 15 years are able to vote and these measures are expanding that further.
I was going to add more on the process of using attestations to demonstrate the connection to the UK address, as this was asked about by several noble Lords. It is important to make this work, so that an eligible applicant has every opportunity to demonstrate their eligibility. We anticipate that an electoral registration officer will be able to verify most applicants’ connection to their qualifying address using register checks or DWP historic address matching. Where this is not possible, applicants will be able to provide documentary evidence or, failing that, an attestation. This is in alignment with the processes for verifying identity. We have considered feedback from stakeholders on the different types of documentary evidence that an overseas applicant may have available to them and enabled electoral registration officers to consider a wide range of documentary evidence, providing that it contains the applicant’s name and qualifying address. This is a hierarchy of processes that applicants must go through. Attestation can only be used if those other processes have not been able to establish the information needed.
The attestation process is a long-established process for voter registration and, as I said before, used only where other methods of verification have been exhausted. Attestors are subject to certain requirements and must provide information that demonstrates that they meet those requirements. They must declare that all information in an attestation is true and acknowledge that it is an offence to provide false information to an electoral registration officer. The Government believe that these instruments strike a balance between the accessibility and integrity of the attestation process by introducing new limits on the number of individuals an attestor can attest for within an electoral year. The Electoral Commission provides guidance for EROs on verifying attestations and has the power to reject those attestations.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, for her response. I also thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, although I was quite bemused by the frustration of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, at myself and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, having not attended the overseas Conservatives meeting. I did not get an invitation either.
UK politics is already vulnerable to bad actors, including hostile states, seeking to subvert democracy through donations to political parties. I want to highlight the fundamental point in this debate: extending the right to vote to millions of new voters overseas without a related requirement to check the source of donors’ funds will significantly increase the risk of foreign influence in our politics.
We have raised concerns around this issue continuously: my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock raised concerns during the passage of the Elections Bill; my noble friend Lord Coaker raised concerns during the passage of the National Security Bill; and noble Lords from across the House raised the alarm in the interests of national security during the passage of that same Bill. The Electoral Commission has raised concerns in this area. The chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee has expressed concerns and spoken out on this area, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, mentioned. The Committee on Standards in Public Life has also spoken out on this very point.
The Government have resisted in providing the necessary checks and safeguards. Although I appreciate the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn— I have the utmost respect for her, especially as we are constantly sharing parenting notes with each other as we both have young children—she has, unfortunately, not provided any assurances on the fundamental issue of foreign and undue influence in our democracy, which ultimately affects our country’s national security. In view of the importance of this issue, I would like to test the opinion of the House and put my amendment to a vote.
Representation of the People (Overseas Electors etc.) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Penn
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 23 October be approved.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill
Tuesday 12th December 2023
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2023 View all National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 30 November 2023 - (30 Nov 2023)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to the Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. With the agreement of the Committee, I will now report the Bill to the House without amendment. That concludes the Committee’s proceedings; the House will now resume.
National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill
Tuesday 12th December 2023
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2023 View all National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 30 November 2023 - (30 Nov 2023)
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the passage of the Bill. It delivers on the Government’s long-term plan to grow the economy and reform the tax system. It achieves this by cutting taxes for 29 million workers through three measures: a reduction in the main rate of employee class 1 national insurance contributions, or NICs, from 6 January 2024; a reduction in the main rate of self-employed class 4 NICs, from 6 April 2024; and the removal of the requirement to pay self-employed class 2 NICs, also from April 2024. Those who choose to pay class 2 voluntarily will still be able to do so. This simplifies the system for self-employed taxpayers, so that it is more closely aligned with the treatment of employees. The Government intend to fully abolish class 2 NICs, and further details about this reform will be set out next year.
Although this is a relatively small Bill, it has a big impact. It is an integral part of the Government’s long- term plan to grow the economy and reform the tax system but, most importantly, it is fair and it is right, because it stands by working people.
I would especially like to take the opportunity to thank all the Treasury officials for their enormous hard work in bringing the Bill to your Lordships’ House so quickly, such that it will deliver the benefit to workers from January 2024. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, it is customary at this point to thank all those who have helped us with the Bill. The arduous task of taking it through has perhaps been one of the lighter moments of our parliamentary lives, but there was still a lot of hard work by the Bill team to prepare it. I would thank my staff, except that none of them worked on it. This is just to say a formal thank you to everyone who contributed to this process. We appreciate it.
Organ Donations
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on organ donations of the Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Act 2019.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very glad to have tabled this Question for Short Debate. I was honoured to take through the House my Bill, which became the Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Act in 2019. In the year before the Bill became law, over 400 people died while waiting for a transplant and a further 755 people were removed from the transplant list as they were just too ill to receive a transplant. The Act aimed to increase the number of organ donations and save more lives.
The Policy Innovation Research Unit at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine is undertaking an evaluation for the Government on the implementation of the Act. It described the situation we have as a “soft opt-out” system, where it is presumed that people are happy to donate their organs after their death unless they have indicated otherwise or registered their decision to opt out. The principle behind the Act is simple: decisions not to donate should rest with individuals to make during their life, and families should not be able to make decisions on their behalf after they have died. The question is: has the Act made an impact?
My understanding is that there were just under 7,000 patients waiting for a transplant, with a further 3,800 temporarily suspended from the transplant list, at the end of March 2023. In 2022-23, 439 patients died while on the active list waiting for their transplants, compared with 429 in the previous year. A further 732 were removed from the transplant list, mostly as a result of deteriorating health and ineligibility.
NHS Blood and Transplant reported that:
“In 2022/23, there was a 2% increase in the number of deceased donors … and the total number of patients whose lives were potentially saved or improved by an organ transplant increased by 5%”.
Worryingly, its evaluation of opt-out legislation in England observed a consent rate of 61%, which was lower than the predicted post-legislative opt-out consent rate of 78%. We can conclude that, in England, while there has been a little progress, there is no evidence of significant change in consent rates in the initial years after implementation.
So what has gone wrong? I want to identify six issues. The first is whether the NHS is geared up to respond to higher deceased donor rates, if we can get them. The second is whether we have enough specialist nurses. They have the extremely difficult role to play of initiating discussions about potential organ donations with families, at a sensitive time. The family is still always involved in those discussions, but we know that investment in transplant co-ordinators is often cited as one of the key factors for Spain’s world-leading organ transplantation service. The third issue is whether we have a strong enough communications strategy. The Government committed £18 million to this but, in essence, Covid got in the way. It seems to have been left to patients themselves and the charities that support them, such as Kidney Care UK, to raise awareness of the Act.
The fourth issue is bureaucracy. While the Act covers some elements of deceased donation, it excludes less common organs, tissues and research. There are now multiple pieces of legislation and consent systems working in parallel, which provide a confused picture for those trying to operate the transplant service. The fifth issue is that there clearly needs to be a lot of work done to reverse the poor donor participation affecting patients with ethnically diverse backgrounds. Finally, we need to think further about the role of families. Although families no longer have a veto in law on organ giving, in practice they are still influential. This contrasts with other countries where opt-out systems are in place, where there tend to be fewer families vetoing the organ donations of their loved ones.
In advance of the evaluation that the Government commissioned, three reports have identified and looked at some of these issues. The first was that of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Ethnicity Transplantation and Transfusion. Its recent report highlighted how the lack of donor participation affects patients with ethnically diverse backgrounds. It reports that a patient’s chance of surviving diseases such as blood cancer, and chronic conditions such as kidney disease, is heavily swayed by their ethnicity. On average, those of mixed heritage and from ethnic-minority communities wait longer for diagnosis and for the best donor to be found for their treatment. The APPG says that its key discovery is how hard it is to get sound data and what little progress has been made on this. The APPG thinks that our healthcare systems do not record ethnicity with the consistency or granularity necessary to be clear about the gaps in need and outcome of treatments.
Kidney Research UK echoed this in its 2018 report on the health inequalities of kidney disease, which found that people from ethnic-minority groups waited between 168 and 262 days longer for a kidney transplant than Caucasian kidney patients. I find that both remarkable and utterly unacceptable; think of the impact that must have on the life chances of those people waiting, on average, much longer for a transplant.
Coupled with that, Kidney Research UK pinpointed in a recent health economics report that demand for kidney transplantation could be as high as 12,000 per year by 2033. In the UK, the current levels are around 3,000—we have an awful long way to go there.
I will mention a final report produced last month by the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, which stated that organ utilisation is a key issue affecting transplant rates in the UK. It pointed out that in 2022-23 only 15% of donor lungs offered for transplantation were utilised. It also pointed to a February 2023 report by the Organ Utilisation Group—I believe Ministers have looked at it very carefully—which highlighted the unwarranted variation in practice between organ types and transplant units contributing to disparities in more general access.
I put the following questions to the Minister. First, is he satisfied that NHS Blood and Transplant and NHS trusts are putting sufficient priority into work on organ donation? Is NHS Blood and Transplant far too risk averse? Has it struggled to adapt to a soft opt-out programme? It looks to me as if it has continued to operate on the basis that the family needs to give consent. Secondly, does he think enough resources have been put into the programme? I particularly have in mind the specialist nurses who are the key professionals in the service in terms of relating to families, alongside transplant services themselves. Do we have continuous communications campaigns and, if not, should we not be prepared to invest some resource in stepping that up? Around that is the message of individual choice; is the choice to donate organs and tissues sufficiently clear to the public?
As patient support charities, including Kidney Care UK, are working across all regions to increase awareness and encourage those vital family conversations about organ donations, can we give those organisations more support?
Is the Minister satisfied that NHS Blood and Transplant is really grasping the opportunities that having an opt-out law can bring to increasing public awareness? During the progress of the Bill, I received huge support from its medical director. He came to briefings very enthusiastic about getting rates up, but I do not get that sense of enthusiasm from the organisation any more. Is it fully committed to taking advantage of the legislation?
Finally, are the Government cognisant of some of the issues that bureaucracy is causing?
I very much welcome this debate and look forward to hearing other contributions.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the debate brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the focus that it enables on this issue. I am supportive of the principle of the legislation that he brought forward, which balances out the opportunity for increasing those making life-saving organ donations, while still being wedded to the principle of voluntary decisions to donate.
In the short time available, I will concentrate on a point touched on by the noble Lord—the specific position of those suffering from cystic fibrosis. This covers about 10,500 people in the United Kingdom, and organ donation is particularly relevant to them because it is highly likely that the vast majority will require it at some point in their lives. Normally that is in the nature of a double lung transplant, but it can also have impact on organ donations involving the stomach. As he indicated, it is not simply a question of widening the pool of people willing to give a donation. The latest figures suggest that in 2022 there were 33 donors providing lungs within the system, but only six operations involving a lung transplant. The figure cited by the Cystic Fibrosis Trust makes reference to about 15%. That led, in part, to the Government’s establishment of their own Organ Utilisation Group, which reported in 2023 and highlighted a wide variety of practice in both the type of organs and between different units.
We have also seen barriers to utilisation that can happen for non-clinical reasons—for example, the absence of a theatre where the operation can be performed. Arising from that report were 12 recommendations. It would be useful if the Government could indicate whether they are committed to all 12 of those recommendations, and any progress they have made on their implementation.
With cystic fibrosis we concentrate very much on the issue of organ donation supply, but demand is also critical. We know that the modular treatment developed in the past few years can reduce the pressures of demand. Agreement was reached in 2019 between the NHS and those providing medications that lead to modular treatment. On the face of it, the initial reports suggest there is clear clinical evidence that it is of benefit. For example, 96 people joined the cystic fibrosis transplant waiting list in 2019, while in 2022 the figure was just 22. What is concerning is that the initial conclusion drawn is that this provides something clinically effective, but there is a question mark over value for money. It is critical that this be resolved, because it is leaving many families in a very difficult position.
This highlights that widening the pool of people giving consent for organised donation is critical for individual families. That is only one part of the picture—the other issues of utilisation of organs and demand is critical as well. That provides us with the full picture and jigsaw, and I am interested in the Minister’s response on those issues.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which takes me back more than a decade to when I worked at Facebook. That may seem like a weird connection, but back in those days when Facebook was connecting people for social good—before we went on to destroy democracy—one of the programmes we ran was encouraging the uptake of organ donor registers. There were people connecting on the social media platform to arrange donations and we extended that and said that it was great to use our platform to get out there and encourage people to sign up. There was a slight flaw in that this was all designed from the US perspective, where of course it is an opt-in register that you sign up to when you get your driving licence. That worked for the US because nearly everyone has a driving licence, but when we tried to roll it out across the world I had to tell colleagues that the US model is not always present. We started to look at the variation across different systems and recognised that there was opt-in, opt-out and 99 different varieties of organisational structures for organ donation.
Fast forwarding to where we are now, the law has certainly moved on since those days, not least thanks to the efforts of the noble Lord and others who took through the law change in England. As he pointed out, a lot of those shifts in the law are predicated on assumptions about an uplift that will happen. He cited the figures, which I also saw, that there would a shift from 61% of people consenting to donation to 78%, yet the numbers show us that it has not happened and that the change has been much less dramatic.
Of course, Covid intervened, so the data we have, for England in particular, is not especially helpful and will not be for a little while as we get back to more of a “business as usual” situation. But there is really interesting data from other countries. Part of the fascination of being a spokesperson in this place is that it does encourage you to learn and read about things that you did not understand before, and to take that curiosity.
I found a fascinating 2021 paper from an academic called Harriet Etheredge in the Risk Management and Healthcare Policy publication, which I recommend, if noble Lords have not read it. She goes through the difference between opt-out and opt-in systems in a very readable and accessible way. The short version of her summary is that a shift to opt-out is not the silver bullet many people hope it will be. Rather, she concludes that actual rates of donation—which is what we are concerned about at the end of the day, not the rates of who has opted in or out; it is ultimately about the number of organs that end up being donated—relate to many other factors in a country’s healthcare system. She says it is very much about looking at specific local barriers and building local trust.
I want to build on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and to address the specific barriers in England in particular—that is what we are talking about in this debate—thinking about what builds trust in England.
The data in the House of Lords Library note, which was again helpfully supplied for this debate, tends to reinforce the view that it is not all about opt-in or opt-out. It tells us that the top-rated countries are the United States and Spain, the United States being an opt-in country. In the paper, Spain is described as not pure opt-out; it is seen as an opt-out country but in fact it is more of a hybrid model. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, described, the Spanish example is very instructive because it is not necessarily the register that has got Spain to those levels. Academics suggest that it took Spain 10 years from moving to the hybrid opt-out model to get to those high rates. It got there by investing in the transplant services and in family counselling in particular, in order to get ahead of the moment when a decision is made. When you know someone is likely to be a donor, you start the conversation with the family at that stage, so that when the decision has to be made, a lot of the work has already been done and people have a much greater level of understanding.
Harriet Etheredge does, in passing, talk about the hard opt-out model whereby families cannot overrule— I think that was introduced in Brazil—but suggests that there was a significant backlash. So, there are major concerns about a model whereby families cannot overrule if there has not been an express wish. That is worth considering. I can instinctively see why it does not take many negative stories about families who really object to being overruled for the whole system to fall into disrepute; that was certainly the situation in Brazil.
The paper looks at other national situations. Harriet Etheredge highlighted Singapore, which is interesting because it is ethnically, religiously and culturally very diverse. Referring again to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, there may be some really interesting lessons to learn from Singapore. It has an advanced healthcare system, but people’s social attitudes are quite diverse. For example, it has a large Islamic community, which has traditionally been more sceptical about and had more concerns about organ donation. Singapore has managed to work through those, and there may be something important for us there.
The importance of education and trust in the system cannot be overstated. That is particularly true for the families. We can educate ourselves, as potential donors, but the other critical parties are the families who are sitting around us if ever it comes to the point when that donation may be about to be made. Perhaps we do not focus enough effort on educating families about how they should approach that situation. They are in an incredibly distressed state at the deathbed of a relative, and that is the time to finish the conversation about organ donation, not start it. A lot of education upfront would be very useful.
It is essential to have staff who have the time to do this very labour-intensive work; again, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about blood and transplant services. It is incredibly labour-intensive to sit with people for perhaps hours as they say, “Yes. No. Yes. No”, going backwards and forwards, as we all might do in that situation. That is not something our NHS is traditionally geared up to do; it is more a case of “make a decision and move on”. Co-ordination is also labour-intensive; it is very on/off, and it requires many hours of people’s time. I will be interested to hear from the Minister where this fits into the workforce plan, given that we need this particular skillset and capacity.
The other key flag raised relates to transparency and accountability. If we are going to have public consent, there needs to be some understanding of the system as a whole, not just individual decisions. We can see how trust can be lost, given the range of stories we read every day about organ harvesting, unfair access to transplants, failed transplants and so on. We need to be mindful of that: for people to buy into the system, they have to see that the benefits outweigh the negatives. We all understand why, in many cases, the negatives are more newsworthy, but I do worry that trust is lost. Every time there is an organ harvesting story, we may say that that has nothing to do with the NHS and organ transplanting, but people out there start to associate transplants with something dark and negative, rather than positive and life-giving. I will be interested to hear how the Government intend to address that.
It would be unwise to assume that everybody will always see transplants as a priority. This touches on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Weir. A double lung transplant, for example, requires a huge amount of resource. Probably all of us involved in this debate believe that we need to make that investment, and that it is a valid one for the NHS. But in order for people to understand the system as a whole, the Government need to keep repeating why investing in transplants—which will benefit a small number of individuals compared to other services that will benefit many more people—is critical and deserves to happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, set out six brilliant areas of focus, and I hope the Minister is able to work through those and, in his usual fashion, give us some meaty responses.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Hunt, not just for securing this important debate and raising so many issues in a clear and methodical fashion, but for his work in taking the Bill through to fruition to become an Act. Of course, he continues to champion this very important cause, and for that, he deserves all our thanks.
Before the Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Act came into force in 2020, it did receive cross-party support. Of course, there were concerns, but it was agreed across the parties that the previous law needed to be changed. The Act was praised as a key part of shifting the debate on the commitment to and resourcing of organ donation: an Act that would push forward thinking—that we should look beyond that legislation coming on to the statute book. As was highlighted then, and as we must highlight again now, the campaign to increase the number of organ donors did not end with the Act; it was always intended that the Act would push it forward, and that is what we are talking about tonight.
On the impact of the Act itself, the Government have already said in an Answer to a Written Question that
“it may never be possible to distinguish the true impact of opt-out legislation due to the impact”
of the pandemic. To some extent, that is completely understandable, because Covid-19 was disruptive in so many ways, but particularly with donation numbers decreasing by some 25%. However, perhaps the Minister can explain why, as time goes on and we are more distanced from the pandemic, that picture will not become clearer. Is it because Covid-19 disrupted attitudes towards organ donation, or because the disruption itself meant that processes were not put in place to correctly measure the difference? Or was something else going on? It would be helpful to understand that.
Is there a reason to believe that organ donation levels, putting the Act on one side, would not have evened out, either by now or at some point in the future. At what point should we be able to see the proper impact of the Act?
Regardless of the causes, it is, of course, as my noble friend Lord Hunt said, disappointing that the consent rate of 61% remains significantly lower than the predicted 78%, simply because there remain many more people waiting for organs than there are receiving them. In simple language, more donations are required.
Again, as my noble friend said, the latest NHS report said there were almost 7,000 people waiting for a transplant at the end of March, with almost a further 4,000 temporarily suspended from lists. This is an increase of 47% on the previous year, while the number of donors went up only 2% on the year before. This sadly means that some 439 people died who were on the active list, while a further 732 were removed from the list, mostly because they became ineligible due to deteriorating health. It is not a situation that we expected to see when the Act came in.
The noble Lords, Lord Allan and Lord Weir, spoke about families and their importance in all of this. It is interesting to note that the main reasons for families not supporting organ donation are: first, that the patient previously expressed a wish not to donate; secondly, that the family may feel that the length of time for the donation process is just too long; and, thirdly, that the family are not sure whether the patient would have agreed to donation. What is striking about that list is that none of those reasons requires further legal changes if we are seeking to improve the number of donors, especially where patients are unsure.
I think this debate has touched on that, and I would like to refer to two of the points that have already been raised. The first is about communication. During the passage of the Bill, the need for a comprehensive communications strategy and media campaign, as well as for increased resources for our healthcare structures, was raised, in order that everybody has the information they need to make what is a very important choice in an informed fashion. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister what the Government have been doing in these areas, particularly since the Act came into effect. What assessment has been made about what still needs to be done in terms of communication?
We know a number of people have said that the process is just too long. What is being done to make the process shorter and less burdensome, in order to reduce the number of people who opt out of choosing to donate organs for that reason?
The other area that has been raised in this debate and needs to be addressed is the disparities in representation in organ donation. NHS Blood and Transplant has stated that, despite an increase in the proportion of opt-in registrations from BAME donors over the past five years—with the work done to improve that engagement being praised, and we should add our praise to that—there remain under-representation and lower consent rates. So I hope the Minister can highlight what steps are being taken to deal with this continuing disparity, as well as the disparities that are so evident regionally. London has a consent rate of 51%, compared with 72% in the south-west. With the average in England and Wales being 61%, bringing regions such as London and the Midlands, with their lower consent rates, up to the average, could save lives.
Looking to the other end of the process, it is welcome that the Government announced earlier this year that they would be taking forward recommendations from the Organ Utilisation Group, to reduce the number of organs that are not properly utilised and to provide more consistency in the levels of performance and care that patients receive. While demand for organs exceeds supply, these efficiencies are especially important to tackle. So perhaps the Minister could also update your Lordships’ House on the progress in implementing these recommendations and, while I would not expect there has been any noticeable impact at this stage, what difference do the Government project that these changes will make?
For me, this debate is an important one; it keeps the issue in focus. I am sure that the Minister shares many of the concerns that have been raised this evening and I look forward to hearing his response on how we how we can work to save more lives through organ donation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
I add my thanks, particularly for all the work that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has done, not just in bringing this debate today but, obviously, in putting the Act through in the first place. On a personal note, one of the pleasures of this job is looking into an area that is fascinating and something we are all involved in and have experiences of in our everyday lives. There are lots of hard things about the job, but sometimes these are the fun bits.
Coincidentally, I am visiting the NHS blood transfusion service’s Bristol operation on Thursday—so this is very timely. I will put a lot of these challenges directly to them. Obviously, I am speaking personally here, but what we have seen is a mixture of the disruptions of Covid and quite a change in the leadership of the blood transfusion service. The service has been undergoing quite some changes, and it would be good to test the temperature to see just how much it is on this.
One of the things I would probably like to do is set a challenge—“Where are you on this?” Maybe they will give us some fantastic answers; it is always best to hear things from the horse’s mouth. As I say, there is a relatively new CEO and maybe they will give us some fantastic answers and I can just report back to the House—that would be fantastic. I suspect what we really need to do is to say, “You have a couple of months”—or whatever—“to take this away. These are all the issues that were raised. Come back and make a presentation to us”. We could do that as a round table, because I think that is something we would all find illuminating—putting them through their paces.
The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, reminded us of the Churchill quote—it is not the end, or even the beginning of the end; it is the end of the beginning. My gut feeling is that the Act was almost a case of “Right, we’ve done this now and it will all look after itself”. Of course, there is a lot of underlying issues from there. We had Covid, and suddenly everyone was focusing on other things. This is why this debate is very timely: we need to turn our attention back on this and say, “Actually, now, thankfully, we are getting back to normal. How do we need to look at this?”
As many noble Lords have picked up, the real disparity seems to be in the involvement of the family. If the person has consented anyway through other processes, they are much more likely to follow those wishes and rates go up to 90%. If they have not given their consent, and so the family do not know, it is much more like 60% or 61%.
That real disparity, I have been told, means that we need to do comms campaigns all around increasing the level of people proactively going out to do that. It could be when they apply for driving licences or passports, or in other interactions. By doing that, it is much easier for the family; they know that that person made their wishes perfectly clear. As I say, 90% of the time the family then go with it, because they understand those wishes. That is really the thinking on the major facts in the comms campaign.
Within that, it is also about trying to make it as easy as possible. A new lens needs to be used for looking at the whole customer journey, for want of a better term, to make it as user-friendly as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Allan, mentioned some of his Facebook experiences about how you do this. There is a complicated process for which organs you can opt in and out on. Is that needed? Again, there is an argument for giving people choice. I am told that people have an aversion to giving corneas. They will approve a lot of things but are more disturbed by the thought of giving their eyes. I think people like having that choice, but this is almost about having a “yes to all” tick box as the automatic default option here.
Before I reply formally to some of the questions, another observation I make is that, although I am not saying that this should be driven by economics, the economics are clear: transplants save a lot of money as well, particularly in the case of kidney transplants. That is because you have people who are having a lot of dialysis and other treatments. In my research for this debate, I was told that the economics are very clear. It is worth investing in the resource behind this, because the transplant is not only much better for ongoing life; it actually saves the NHS money, because patients are not having to go for those future treatments.
I mentioned my meeting with the staff. The noble Lord, Lord Weir, made points about the recommendations of the Organ Utilisation Group. I am told that DHSC, the blood transfusion service and NHSE have accepted those recommendations and are working towards ensuring that they are implemented. A lot of the time, this is about trying to make sure that we are maximising it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, said, it is not just the number of people who consent but the utilisation. They have managed to increase the number of organs used to about two and a half per person right now. It is about not just converting those people who have consented but how you utilise it, so they are working on that.
On the resource for this, at the moment there are 330 specialist nurses—it is accepted that you need a specialist nurse to do this—and 55 clinical leads. Clearly, that should be one of the things we challenge when we meet on this, given that the economics are clear. On the marketing, again, attention is being turned more towards that. After Organ Donation Week, the impact of that campaign was a 22% increase in registrations. As I said before, it was very much focused on trying to persuade people to proactively go out and consent, because it is much more likely that the families will go along with that when they do so.
There are a lot of small things in this; there is no silver bullet. It is about trying to get across them all. As was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Weir and Lord Allan, there is quite a disparity for black and ethnic-minority people, which we need to understand further. I was wondering about the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, on the disparities between regions. My hunch when looking at that sort of data is that there are younger populations in London and the Midlands and an older population in the south-west, so is there something going on with the age profiles? Perhaps those are driving a difference in behaviour, so maybe the comms campaign needs to try to target certain people some more.
Some international comparisons were mentioned. For me, the biggest lesson is in another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Allan: these things are so cultural as well. From my understanding, it took Spain a good 10 years or so to really do this. We need to think about all those cultural aspects in our campaigns. Just saying, “Now that we’ve changed the Act, it will go ahead and happen” is not a silver bullet. What we have really learned from all this is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, said, that it is just the start. It is not the end of the journey. As the noble Lord, Lord Allan, said, it all comes down to trust in people—and trusting that the process is all there.
I hope I have managed to pick up most of the questions as I have gone through this. To me, the biggest thing is about putting the challenge down to the NHS blood transfusion service and giving it the time to do it properly. We can then invite its people back, and at that point we could invite all the noble Lords who are here today. I really appreciate this being brought up today, as we could do a lot more on it.