House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)
Around 45% of the Government’s £5.2 billion investment in flood protection is targeted at rural communities, and the Minister for Water is allocating £75 million of funding specifically to internal drainage boards, which, again, serve many rural constituencies.
Craig Tracey
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. In recent months, parts of North Warwickshire and Bedworth, including Austrey, Polesworth and the Woodlands, have seen significant and unprecedented flooding, which has caused real damage to houses and businesses and upheaval for local residents. Will the Secretary of State set out what other steps can be taken to prevent this from happening and to stop these situations becoming the norm?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend has been a real constituency champion in highlighting some of the flooding issues that have occurred in North Warwickshire and Bedworth. Of the Environment Agency investment over six years, £24 million is going specifically into protecting 800 properties, and I know we will have further discussions on the work that he is doing locally to tackle flooding.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his response. As he will know, the Northern Ireland Assembly is back up and running. We have a Minister in place to deal with flooding, but money must be spent wisely and effectively. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister at this early stage to ensure that lessons learned here on the mainland can be used back home, where over the past year flooding has become an exceptional problem that worries many people?
Steve Barclay
I think the whole House welcomes the fact that the Assembly is back up and running. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am very keen, as a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, that money is spent in a value-for-money way. I was in the Northern Ireland Secretary’s constituency just last week to discuss a range of issues in Northern Ireland, and I am very keen that we learn from each other about the best ways to tackle flooding.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
I welcome the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) and the action taken by some supermarkets to introduce a “buy British” button online, and I strongly support their efforts to encourage consumers to pick high-quality British produce. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has launched a consultation on fairer food labelling to help promote British produce and statutory codes that ensure that British farmers get a fair price for their goods.
Mr Hollobone
One of the best ways we can support British farmers is by choosing to buy British food. It is good for the environment, reduces food miles and improves our food security, because we are importing less produce. Will my right hon. Friend the Farming Minister join me in specifically congratulating Morrisons, Aldi, Sainsbury’s and Ocado, which all now have the “buy British” button online so that consumers can easily find British food to buy?
Mark Spencer
What we see is that consumers want to buy top-quality British food. I congratulate those supermarkets, and I encourage others to consider whether they may want to introduce a “buy British” button for online sales.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)
We know how important clean water is to the public, and we share their concern and outrage about pollution in waterways. That is why we have increased monitoring of storm overflows in England from 7% under Labour in 2010 to 100% today, and we are now holding water companies to account on tackling pollution by quadrupling the number of checks, increasing unannounced inspections, giving Ofwat new powers to block bonuses, and taking action against water companies that do not link dividends to environmental performance.
Mick Whitley
Households across the north-west could see their water bills rise by nearly 40% by 2030 as water companies look to consumers to meet the costs of much-need infrastructure upgrades. Do the Government agree that the cost of stemming the flow of sewage into our waterways should be met by the water companies and the shareholders who were received hundreds of millions of pounds in payouts last year, not by the hard- working British public?
Robbie Moore
The Government are absolutely clear that no one should pay extra for water companies to clean up our rivers. We are pleased that water companies have promised a £96 billion investment over the next five years across England and Wales, and we will continue to hold polluters to account. Just this week, we announced a fast-track investment of £180 million over the next 12 months to prevent more than 800,000 sewage spills from polluting English waterways.
Rachael Maskell
We should not have an open sewer flowing through the city of York and, when it floods, flowing into businesses and people’s homes. While water company executives have pocketed £10 million in bonuses, my constituents have had to put up with 1,414 sewage releases. When will the Minister end this profiteering and invest in upgrading York’s sewerage infrastructure? How does he intend to do this?
Robbie Moore
As I said, we have already seen water companies want to invest £96 billion over the next price review cycle. I recently visited York, and work is being undertaken by Yorkshire Water to address sewage pollution spills. Ofwat has already been given powers to take a much tougher approach to bosses’ bonuses, if their companies are deemed to have been polluting. This Government will continue to hold water companies to account.
Stephen Crabb
I welcome the action that this Government are taking to improve water quality, but in Wales, which has some of the worst levels of sewage pollution, there are no legally binding targets for the water companies to reduce sewage or to upgrade their waste water treatment plants, and there is no overall reduction plan for sewage. There are not even any prosecutions, because the policy in Wales is not to prosecute these companies. Does the Minister know which party is running the Administration in Wales?
Robbie Moore
I share my right hon. Friend’s concerns about Labour’s failure to tackle spills from storm overflows in Wales, where the average number of spills from storm overflows is two thirds higher than in England. I am not surprised by this, because we know that when Labour was last in government in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored, compared with 100% today. Ninety per cent of bathing waters are now classed as good or excellent, compared with just 76% under Labour in 2010.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Drinking water is treated with both ultraviolet light and chlorine before it goes into our taps, so it is perfectly safe. Water that goes through water treatment works is treated but not necessarily disinfected by the use of UV, unless it is heading towards a designated bathing water.
France is hosting the Olympics in Paris, and the Seine is being treated with performic acid. One place in this country, Southwold, is using performic acid right now, but scientists from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency have so far been reluctant to roll it out. If it is good enough for people to swim in the Seine during the Olympics, surely it is good enough to start using this treatment, which is cheaper and could be deployed across our country.
Robbie Moore
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this important issue, and I reassure her that I am having conversations with officials not only in the Environment Agency but in DEFRA on this very issue. I am more than happy to meet her so she can share her knowledge from when she was Secretary of State.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is clear from what we have heard that the Minister is here to tell us how well the Government and the water companies are doing. Meanwhile, out there in the real world, the recent “State of Our Rivers” report exposed that not one English river is in a good overall condition. The capital’s water supplier is on the brink of collapse, and the only solution that the Government are even considering was stolen from the Labour party. Is it not the truth that what Britian’s rivers really cannot afford is five more years of this useless Government?
Robbie Moore
When the Leader of the Opposition says that he would want Wales to be his blueprint if Labour gets into power in England, I fear for this country. We have seen far worse water pollution under Welsh Labour, as has already been said. We will continue with our plan for water, which is about more investment, stronger regulation and much tougher enforcement against those who pollute.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)
DEFRA, supported by the Environment Agency, is currently seeking clarification from Thames Water on its revised draft water resources management plan to help inform the next steps for the Teddington project. The proposals are still at an early stage. Thames Water will continue to carry out further consultation over the next couple of years to help it design and carry out further environmental assessments of the scheme.
Munira Wilson
The water resources management plan for the south-east, which contains the highly controversial Teddington direct river abstraction proposal opposed by tens of thousands of local residents and river users across south-west London, has been sitting on the Environment Secretary’s desk since August. We have been calling for the Teddington proposal to be taken out of the plan, and we were told that a decision would be made by Christmas, then by February 2024, and now we are told it will be made in due course. In the meantime, as the Minister suggests, Thames Water is wasting huge amounts of billpayers’ money on the proposals, so will he confirm when the Secretary of State plans to make a decision on the water resources management plan and whether he will take the Teddington project out of it?
Robbie Moore
This follows on from a conversation I had with the hon. Lady and her constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). We are well aware of Thames Water’s proposals for this scheme, which is still in a consultation stage. It is one of 17 strategic water resources options being considered across the Thames catchment, and I will be updated by Thames Water, as will the Secretary of State, when it has completed its consultation.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)
The Department engages regularly with UK industry to understand the impact of the Windsor framework, and we encourage businesses to respond to the consultation, which is still live.
Mr Dhesi
During my various meetings, including at the UK corporate headquarters of Bidfood in my constituency, exasperated businesses have expressed serious concerns about the damage being inflicted on them by the Conservatives’ ill-thought-through “Not for EU” labelling scheme. Along with increasing consumer confusion, it will also likely reduce choice and raise prices for shoppers. Secretary of State, why are this incompetent Government so hellbent on burdening British businesses with more bureaucracy and red tape, and increasing their cost base?
Steve Barclay
First, let me say that there is a consultation taking place, so there is discussion on this. Secondly, £50 million has already been allocated as transitional support. Thirdly, particularly for colleagues in Northern Ireland, it is important that, far from restricting choice, we maintain it. That is exactly what the Windsor framework, which the House as a whole agreed to, is designed to do.
Dr Huq
A correctly labelled shipment for Going Nuts, a firm in Park Royal, made it to Felixstowe on 2 January but, shockingly, it has only just been released from being impounded. That was due to a customs staff shortage at the border, so will the Government fix that? The company incurred a three-figure sum for 40 days’ storage, plus VAT. The Government are throwing small business under the bus—albeit a Sadiq Khan bus with low emissions.
Steve Barclay
I will leave it to others to deduce the link to Sadiq Khan’s bus. I think the hon. Lady prepared her question before the previous answer, because I just set out that we are giving £50 million of transitional labelling support. Of course, a consultation is live and we are working with businesses on it.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Food and Drink Federation has warned the UK Government that their plan to require all meat and dairy sold in the UK to have “Not for EU” labelling attacked will divert “hundreds of millions of pounds” of investment away from the UK, and that several international investors have paused their plans to invest in UK food and drink. As we continue to circle the drain of Tory-imposed recession, will the Secretary of State tell the House and the public if driving investment away from this vital sector will help or hinder attempts to avoid yet greater recessions?
Steve Barclay
Of course we will work with industry on any changes, but the SNP needs to be consistent, because we have other proposals, such as the review of public sector procurement being carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) and fairer labelling. For example, pigs reared overseas are often marketed as British bacon, and our labelling changes often have widespread support from the farming sector. It is important that we do these changes with the industry, which is why we have allocated £50 million of transitional support.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)
British farmers put food on our tables and form the backbone of the rural economy, and this Government will always back our farmers. That is why in January we increased the rates paid through the environmental land management actions by an average of 10% and increased the number of choices through the 50 new actions for farmers.
Helen Morgan
One concern that farmers have raised about the sustainable farming incentive is that they have to pay money up front before they can receive compensation or reclaim that money from the Government. A farmer in my constituency installed a stone track to prevent soil from washing on to the road. He committed to the Bacs payment before he received the money from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but because it left his account three days later, he now has to pay his DEFRA money back. This is an insane situation and he cannot afford this. He is going to have to take this track up and sell the stone. Will the Secretary of State help me with this case, so that we get those environmental protection schemes in place and do not penalise people for timing differences?
Steve Barclay
First, I am happy to look at any individual case the hon. Lady raises. Secondly, I agree with her on the wider point. I have been very clear with the Rural Payments Agency that we need a more trusting relationship about payments. We need to accelerate those payments, so they are paid more quickly. To be fair to the RPA, there are sometimes constraints because of National Audit Office rules around the error rate checks it needs. We are working with the RPA to shift the relationship to one built more on trust, where payments go out in a more expedited fashion.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
Fishermen are the farmers of the sea. What further steps is the Secretary of State taking to support the aquaculture industry, especially helping it to create new businesses across our coastal communities?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend knows from our regular conversations just how engaged I am on this subject. He met with the Minister for Water and Rural Growth yesterday. As he knows, there is a consultation about medical exemptions for boats under 10 metres. I know the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries is looking closely at the issues around pollack. I am happy to update my hon. Friend on a series of other initiatives as we work through them.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Has the Secretary of State actually talked to the National Farmers Union recently? Has he even talked to the celebrity farmer on television who we all know about? What is the plan? Farmers are in a period of stasis. They do not know where they are going or how they are going to face the future, because there is no plan under this incompetent Administration.
Steve Barclay
Not only have I spoken to the new president of the NFU—he has been in my office already—but I have been on his farm to discuss these matters. I have also been his deputy’s farm. In fact, on being appointed Secretary of State, the first meeting I had was with the former NFU president and the first meeting in my office, within a week, was with the then president of the NFU, so I regularly engage with colleagues in the NFU. Just this week I had a meeting with the NFU county president for Cambridgeshire. However, I am surpassed in that engagement by the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, who has discussions with the NFU even more frequently.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
On a recent visit to Church Farm in Weston Turville in my constituency, the family who have farmed there for generations stressed how important it is for them to be able to diversify their income, for example with their very popular farm shop, which sells their produce and that of nearby farmers. However, current planning rules limit the shop to opening on 28 days a year. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on his conversations with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and across Government about making it easier for farmers to diversify their income, so that we can assure the food security that is so vital to our nation?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend raises an important point. My focus, and that of the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, is first and foremost on ensuring food production and food security is viable for our farmers, but diversification is also important. I am in advanced discussions with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on extending permitted development rights.
To go back to the question raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), a certain very famous farmer has raised his frustrations in Oxfordshire. I want to streamline permitted developments to make it easier for farmers to diversify, but first and foremost farmers want to produce food, which is my key focus.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Farmers need support against potentially devastating contagious diseases, such as African swine fever. I recently visited Dover, where the diligent Port Health Authority regularly seizes contaminated meat. Yet next month, its DEFRA funding will be cut by 70% and, incredibly, those border checks will be moved 22 miles inland. Why are the Conservatives putting the farmers of this country and our national security at risk?
Steve Barclay
That is a timely question. Just yesterday I had a meeting with the chief veterinary officer to discuss our security risks, particularly in the context of bluetongue disease. It may not be catching the House’s attention today, but I am concerned that it will become a widely debated issue by the summer. I am actively engaged in that discussion, and the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries is having a roundtable on that live security issue next week. Last week, I spoke at the British Veterinary Association annual dinner, which the hon. Gentleman also attended, so he saw in first person just how engaged we are with these issues.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
This Government are committed to protecting human health and the environment, and we will be setting out our priorities for addressing risks from chemicals in due course. To be clear, though, the new draft strategy sets out that our chemicals policy and regulatory decisions will be independent of the EU; they will be bespoke to the UK.
Chi Onwurah
The cosmetics sector is often overlooked, perhaps because we are unwilling to show how dependent we are on that sector, or perhaps because so many of the 550,000 people who work in that sector are women. The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association manifesto makes it clear that it requires a safe and sustainable supply of chemicals within a robust, internationally compatible regulatory framework. Is it not clear that this ongoing chaos with the chemicals strategy means that what it actually requires is a change of Government?
Rebecca Pow
A great many people from that industry were at an international women’s event about sustainability that I spoke at yesterday. In our engagement on the new alternative transition model, which involves working with the industry very closely, we are taking into account the fact that supply chains are complicated, that they operate cross border, and that the sector values access. We will be consulting on the strategy very shortly.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Minister told me in January this year that the chemicals strategy will be produced next year, before correcting it to this year. Whether it is this year, next year or sometime never, does she agree that the strategy will be worth the paper it is written on only if the UK regulations catch up with other countries and stop hazardous substances being dumped here, damaging our environment and public health?
Rebecca Pow
As the hon. Member will know, there is a global framework on chemicals. I attended a conference on the UN global framework on chemicals back in September in Bonn. We signed up to the framework, which is binding, sets targets and international commitments, and relates to finance capacity-building, so that we can soundly manage and handle our chemicals and waste, and that is exactly what we are doing with our bespoke UK strategy.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
Food security is a top priority for the Government and we are committed to continuing to grow 60% of our food here in the UK. To back up those plans, we are introducing an annual food security index and we are currently developing the content of that index. We want to strike the right balance between food production and the natural environment, which is why all the actions in the sustainable farming incentive work to support food production and the environment.
Sir Robert Goodwill
Does the Minister share my concerns that a perfect storm may be brewing? With grain prices on the floor, a third of the wheat crop either not being drilled or flooded out, and rape being increasingly difficult to establish, some of the long-term, multi-annual stewardship options are becoming increasingly attractive. And that is not to mention those idiots in Wales taking 20% of land out of production. Does he share my concerns?
Mark Spencer
That is something we consistently and constantly review to make sure that we are striking that right balance between food production and the environment. We will continue to do that to make sure that we do not see such perverse incentives. Certainly, given the challenge of the weather this season and the difficulties with planting cereal crops, we will continue to look at whether that balance is right. What I do not want is people abusing the system and putting in too much wild bird mix or pollinator mix; we will continue to review whether that is having an impact on the market.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Can the Minister explain how his Department’s policy of taking good agricultural land out of food production is compatible with improving UK food security?
Mark Spencer
I can. The sustainable farming incentive motivates farmers to improve their soil quality, which is good for the production of food, and incentivises farmers to look after pollinators, which is good for the pollination of crops. The environment and food production are two sides of the same coin. We, as farmers, want to encourage farmers to look after the environment, so that we can continue to produce top-quality food on highly productive land.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)
If the hon. Member is concerned about food prices, I urge him to consider the impact of the Scottish Government’s decision to crack down on meal deals and supermarket promotions, which will mean that Scottish customers pay more than English ones for the same products.
Patrick Grady
That has nothing to do with the question on the Order Paper. The London School of Economics found that Brexit has added £250 to the average household bill. The healthcare certificates that are now required will add even more. Is the reality not that the cost of living crisis is a cost of Westminster crisis, fuelled by Brexit?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Member seems to imply that food inflation has been unique to the UK. Actually, we have seen more severe consequences on the continent. It is right to draw the House’s attention to the decisions that the SNP Government are taking, which have an impact on increasing food prices.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)
Since last updating the House, we have continued to bring forward measures to place greater prioritisation on food production and food security. That includes delivering a key National Farmers Union ask for a food security index, committing to the Farm to Fork summit as an annual event, and the largest ever round of grants for farmers, worth £427 million, announced by the Prime Minister to drive greater productivity. We are also consulting on fairer food labels to ensure that our British farmers are fairly rewarded. We are announcing today a consultation on the next phase of our tuberculosis eradication strategy, which includes culling in high-risk areas, and this week I announced that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) is conducting a review into public sector food procurement.
Furthermore, we are taking action to hold water companies to account more strongly, which includes a fourfold increase in inspections and consulting on banning bonuses for companies that commit serious criminal breaches. We are working at pace with the devolved Administrations on the banning of wet wipes. As we covered earlier, we continue to address the threat from the bluetongue virus. I can confirm to the House that I have acted on the representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) on extending the neutering deadline for XL Bully dogs by some months, from 30 January 2024 until 30 June 2025. Finally, tomorrow the Minister responsible for nature will announce the successful bids for species restoration grants, building on the progress on biodiversity net gain.
Sir John Whittingdale
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the inflexibility, bureaucracy and cost of the seasonal poultry workers scheme make it prohibitive for businesses such as Kelly Turkeys in my constituency to hire labour for just a few weeks in the run-up to Christmas? Will he urge the Home Office to include it within the existing seasonal agricultural workers scheme, thus allowing producers to use labour that is already in the country?
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend raises an important point. Of course, there are 2,000 seasonal worker visas to meet the demand in the run-up to Christmas. He will know that from my time as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when I dealt with the issue of turkey supplies before Christmas, I am happy to look at that issue. He is talking about a finite period, and I will make those representations to Home Office colleagues.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
Last month, I visited Newcastle-under-Lyme with local campaigner Adam Jogee to meet residents who are literally choking on toxic fumes from the Walleys Quarry landfill site. More than 10,000 residents have complained about the stench, and a five-year-old child ended up in hospital. Will the Secretary of State publish all correspondence between DEFRA, the Environment Agency and the operator, so that residents in Newcastle-under-Lyme can see why the site has not been closed down?
Steve Barclay
No one could have done more to highlight the issue than the constituency MP. Indeed, the Minister with responsibility for water has already been to Walleys Quarry to look at first hand. Having spoken directly to the chief executive of the Environment Agency, I know that everything that can be done within the law is being done. That is the assurance that the Minister and I have had from the chief exec of the Environment Agency. Indeed, enforcement action was taken recently at that specific site.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
The Government recognise the huge challenge faced by pollack fishers. We are trying to offer funding to help those most affected. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s campaign and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) and for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) in raising the issues. We are helping those fishermen through the fisheries and seafood scheme, as well as with a new scientific study, but the Secretary of State and I are personally looking at what other options may be available to help and support. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) will continue her pursuit of this issue and support for her constituents.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman’s question merely highlights a fundamental difference between the Front Benchers of the two parties: I want to work with farmers, which is why through SFI—the sustainable farming incentive—we are looking at permissive access, where we pay incentives to farmers to provide access to their land; but Labour would impose a top-down requirement with the right to roam, rather than work constructively with our farmers and landowners, which is the approach that the Conservatives are taking.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Steve Barclay
I pay tribute to the amazing campaign led by my hon. Friend on behalf of those in his constituency. Already, £80 million of support has been secured from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for that scheme. He will be aware that the local authority has changed the scope and driven the cost, so there is a question as to what contributions are made by partners, but he is a formidable champion of the scheme and £80 million has already been allocated.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
The hon. Lady is slightly behind the times. We have committed to protecting our hedgerows in law in England. We carried out a consultation, and this measure was extremely popular with our farmers, because we know how much they value hedgerows. They will be protected with those regulations, including the 2 metre buffer strip from the centre of the hedge, and all the rules and regulations on what can and cannot be done, and the cutting ban. We are fully behind that. We are working on the fight to protect nature, and that will be part of getting to our nature target.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
I thank the Minister responsible for water for coming to Vale Road in Colwick recently to meet residents affected by flooding. I know that that meeting was very much appreciated. Will the Minister reassure me that he and his Department will carry on working with me to continue to improve flood defences in Colwick and across Nottinghamshire, so that the residents can sleep a little better at night?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)
I was glad to visit Colwick and meet residents along Vale Road to hear about the impact of recent flooding, not only on them but on residents of the wider area. I will continue to work with my hon. Friend and with Nottinghamshire County Council. This is not the only area that he is interested in; he has also been working with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) to focus on Lambley and Woodborough as well. That work will build on the £51 million that has already been allocated to Nottinghamshire County Council and is already better protecting 15,000 properties.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Steve Barclay
I have a really clear message for his constituents: we are sticking to the plan, which is bringing inflation down—that is what the Chancellor set out in the Budget; the numbers are clear on how inflation has come down—and we are not risking going back to square one, as the hon. Gentleman’s party would propose.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Minister is very aware of the concerns raised by the seafood processing and catching sectors about recent proposals by the Migration Advisory Committee to remove key occupations from shortage occupation lists. What engagement has he had with the Home Office to ensure that the occupations on which our food security and coastal communities depend are adequately and meaningfully supported?
Mark Spencer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his campaigning again on behalf of his constituents. We continue to work with our friends in the Home Office to ensure that the fishing sector in Scotland and around the UK gets the labour that it requires to deliver top-quality British fish to the marketplace. I will continue to have those discussions with the Home Office to ensure that we get to the right place.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I was pleased to play a small part in passing the Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023, but the Government continue to delay its implementation, while 550,000 captive wild animals suffer in tourist entertainment around the world. One example is that of elephants in Thailand, many of which suffer complex post-traumatic stress disorder because of the psychological and physical abuse that they endure daily. UK companies may still advertise and sell tickets for activities that involve elephants that are forced to perform for tourists. Will the Minister assure me that the conversation will be launched as soon as possible and that the regulations will include a ban on the advertising and selling of elephant tourism?
Mark Spencer
Future decisions on which animal activities will fall into the scope of the legislation will need to be evidence-based and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Government continue to make animal welfare a priority. We are currently exploring a number of options to ensure that there is progress as soon as is practicable.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Secretary of State is bringing forward a system of extended producer responsibility to obligate brand owners, including food suppliers, to bear the cost of recycling the packaging that they place on the market. However, in some estimates, the cost to obligated businesses will be 10 times higher than under the current packaging waste recycling note system. Given that the cost will need to be passed to consumers, does the Minister share the concern that it will contribute to food price inflation?
Robbie Moore
It was good to meet my hon. Friend just this week to discuss that issue. I encourage all those in the packaging sector, and those involved in the industry, to keep feeding information to my officials. We are reviewing EPR at the moment—we have a dedicated roll-out plan for it—but we are very keen to hear from the industry.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Government promised to ban plastic in wet wipes nearly a year ago, on 3 April last year, but there is still no ban in place. Will the Minister protect nature by banning plastic in wet wipes now?
Steve Barclay
I am extremely keen to get the ban on wet wipes delivered. Has the hon. Lady spoken to her colleagues in the Welsh Labour Government? As she knows, these things need to go through with agreement from the devolved Administrations. I can assure her that I am pressing very hard on that, and hope to have something to announce very soon. [Interruption.] I will take the chuntering from the Labour Front Benchers into those discussions.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
Ministers are already aware of the success of my quarterly water summits, which have caused Anglian Water to beat the Government target for reducing storm overflows by five years and to pilot all-year-round testing of our bathing waters. However, one agency consistency failed to attend: the Environment Agency. Will the Minister come to the next summit and bring the Environment Agency with him?
Robbie Moore
There is no doughtier champion than my hon. Friend, who has been lobbying me on this issue. I am happy to commit to the Environment Agency attending her next summit, and I will also attend in person.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
British farmers produce some of the very best produce in the world, but the trend in supermarkets selling it is going in the wrong direction. Will the Minister support Liberal Democrat proposals to invest an additional £1 billion in British farming, and reform environmental land management schemes so that they genuinely incentivise sustainable farming?
Steve Barclay
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that British farmers produce among the best food in the world, but I do not agree that the trend is deteriorating—quite the opposite. We have the Buy British campaign, which a number of supermarkets have already signed up to; the public sector review—the Quince review—is under way; and we are looking at labelling, and how we better empower consumers to buy food with good animal welfare standards. There is a lot of progress, and it reflects the great standards we have for British food.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend update the House on the responses to the consultation on the 27 bids for bathing water status—one of which, of course, is for the River Nidd and the lido in Knaresborough?
Robbie Moore
My officials have been inundated with a huge number of responses to the consultations on the 27 bathing water sites. My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for the River Nidd; I cannot say anything at the moment, but he will not have to wait too long before hearing the outcome.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Lidl has become the first supermarket to roll out a deposit return scheme across the whole city of Glasgow. Will the Secretary of State commend Lidl on doing what he blocked the Scottish Government from rolling out across Scotland?
Steve Barclay
I always commend supermarkets that are being innovative, but part of the problem with the initiative in Scotland was the amount of push-back from industry. That is why the Scottish Government pulled it.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Extended producer responsibility will add financial burdens to amazing food producers, such as Wilkin & Sons in Tiptree in my constituency, so can the Secretary of State say what he is doing to keep financial costs down and reduce red tape for great British food manufacturers?
Steve Barclay
As my right hon. Friend knows, we are kindred spirits in trying to keep the amount of red tape and regulation down. Indeed, on a visit to Tiptree just a couple of weeks ago, I looked at methods of automation that bring the cost of food production down. My right hon. Friend will have heard the comment from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), who has responsibility for water: a consultation on these issues is live, and as a formidable constituency champion, I know that my right hon. Friend will ensure that any concerns about costs are raised in that consultation.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)
I visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories between 14 and 16 February. In Israel, I met Israel’s Attorney General, lawyers for the Israel Defence Forces, and the president of the Supreme Court. In the west bank, I met the Palestinian Attorney General and the Prime Minister.
Rachael Maskell
History will not judge kindly when asked whether we did everything we could to prevent possible genocide in Gaza, given the scale of suffering brought about by weapons, disease, hunger, and in the light of the International Court of Justice’s interim order on restraint. When the Attorney General met the officials that she referred to, did she clarify that under the genocide convention, the ICJ order must be adhered to fully, and did she give any indication that the UK will cease participating in arms sales to Israel until that happens?
The Attorney General
I know that the hon. Lady cares very deeply about this region—she and I have visited it together. I reassure her that my discussions with those I met, both in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, were very frank, and I am confident that our messages were delivered clearly. I made clear the importance of international humanitarian law being respected, civilians being protected, and compliance with the Geneva conventions when it comes to detainees.
Dr Huq
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), has stated that the Government respect the ICJ’s independence and role, but do not think that its ruling of plausible genocide was helpful. Given the forcible displacement taking place, the demolition of homes and structures, the near famine in Gaza, and the expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied west bank worsening daily, how does the Attorney General—who has seen all this stuff with her own eyes—propose to uphold international law before it is too late?
The Attorney General
The hon. Lady and I served on the Justice Committee together, and I know that she shares my deep feeling that we must do everything we can to make sure that international humanitarian law is respected in the region. The UK has repeatedly raised with Israel the need to limit operations to military targets, to protect health facilities, and to avoid harming civilians. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have repeatedly raised those matters with their counterparts.
Andy Slaughter
The UK Government’s less than wholehearted endorsement of the ICJ process and the International Criminal Court war crimes investigation, which is led by British lawyers, means that the alternative is that people increasingly turn to violence. That is the view of the Israeli civil society organisations that came to meet us yesterday, with the co-operation of Yachad. We have to uphold international law. Will the Attorney General recommit to both those processes?
The Attorney General
The hon. Gentleman has long campaigned on these issues, so I know that he feels particularly passionately about the region as well. I am absolutely happy to commit this Government once again to upholding, where ever we can, international humanitarian law. Across this House, there is a great deal of consensus: we want the fighting to stop now. We are calling for an immediate pause to get aid in and the hostages out, and then to progress to a permanent ceasefire. We applaud the part of the ICJ’s provisional measures order that calls for exactly that.
Stephen Morgan
It is seven weeks since the ICJ issued its interim ruling on Israel’s conduct in Gaza. The Netanyahu Government have failed to comply with that ruling, and we are still waiting for the UK Government to urge them to do so. Will the Attorney General today call on Israel to take the steps it was ordered to take by the Court?
The Attorney General
We do not feel that that case was particularly helpful at this moment in the negotiations. We absolutely respect the ICJ—I have appeared there myself—and we of course understand that the interim measures order is binding on the parties. As I said to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), elements of that order are extremely sensible, and we wholeheartedly respect them. We call, as the ICJ has done, for aid to go in and the hostages to come out immediately. That is the right way to proceed if we are ever to achieve a permanent ceasefire and, ultimately, a resolution of this dreadful conflict. However, we do not think terms such as “genocide”, without a formal final ruling of the Court, are particularly helpful to use.
Jeff Smith
I welcome the Attorney General’s strong condemnation of settler violence against Bedouin communities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and I also welcome the sanctions recently imposed on some of those involved in the violence. Based on her recent visit, does she think that there is a need to go further and sanction those extremist Israeli politicians who are encouraging the violent and illegal expansion of settlements?
The Attorney General
When I visited the region with the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) many years ago, we saw some of the actions of settlers in the occupied territories. So far as I was able to, I reprised that visit when I went to the region most recently, and I was surprised at the difference in the level of violence used. I was able to visit a Bedouin village and talk to those who feel that at a very difficult time for the farming community, during lambing, they were being pushed off their land. I listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I reassure him that the Government continue to keep this issue under review.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I welcome the Attorney General’s comments. I think every one of us shares the desire for the fighting to stop, and respect for the International Court of Justice. However, does she agree that it is important to be careful when we use legal terms in broader political debate? For example, the test of plausibility in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice is essentially about the admissibility of a claim, rather than its ultimate merits. The Court itself has described that, in a judgment involving Myanmar, as a “low threshold”. It is important not to make more of a preliminary finding than we should before final litigation is completed.
The Attorney General
As ever, the Chairman of the Select Committee makes a very important point, and may I take this opportunity to congratulate him from the Dispatch Box on becoming an honorary KC, which I understand will happen on Monday? I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in saying that he is extremely worthy of this very significant honour, and we are all thrilled that it will be given. He does make an important point: words really matter; there will shortly be a statement to the House about that, and about the meaning of the term “extremism.” It is very important that we all choose our words carefully, particularly when it comes to this long-running and difficult conflict. We respect the rulings of the ICJ—of course we do—but that does not mean that we think every case before it is well brought.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On the issue of international conventions, treaties and international law, including international humanitarian law and the international refugee convention, will the Attorney General place in the Library over the weekend a legal statement on the circumstances in which international law is trumped by clear and unambiguous words in an Act of Parliament? Will she include in that statement the necessary citations from the Supreme Court and the House of Lords?
The Attorney General
My hon. Friend is a great and long-standing Member of this House, and is able to ask questions the answers to which might not automatically be obvious. We are talking here about Palestinian and Israeli counterparts being in compliance with international law, but I am of course delighted to say again to my hon. Friend that this Government are committed to international law—we have said that repeatedly from the Dispatch Box—and I do not see any need to lay a statement such as he suggests, but I will continue to enjoy our conversations on this topic.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
This week, in the other place, the Foreign Secretary said on the tragic conflict in the middle east:
“You have to obey the rules and obey the law”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2024; Vol. 836, c. 1915.]
That is an important affirmation from this Government that Israel both has a right to self-defence and very much has a duty to obey international humanitarian law. Can the Attorney General reaffirm that the Government will continue to stress both that right and that duty in this conflict, which we all want to end as soon as possible?
The Attorney General
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I would not like any Member of this House to be in any doubt: we all, across this House, want the fighting to stop now. That message is delivered by the Government on behalf of the House and the nation repeatedly and loudly. We are calling for an immediate pause to get aid in and hostages out, and then progress to a permanent ceasefire. We need five things to happen: the release of the hostages; the formation of a new Palestinian Government; Hamas’s capacity to launch attacks stopped; Hamas to no longer be in charge of Gaza; and a credible pathway to a two-state solution. I think we can all get behind that.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Robert Courts)
The Crown Prosecution Service is transforming the way that it supports victims. The victim transformation programme will roll out this spring; under it, for example, every rape victim will receive an invitation to meet their prosecution team before their case goes to trial.
Andrew Jones
The tension resulting from the conflict in Israel and Gaza is causing an escalation in hate crimes. What progress is my hon. and learned Friend making alongside the CPS to ensure that the victims of these crimes—indeed, the victims of any hate crime—receive full support, and that the perpetrators are prosecuted?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend raises the absolutely key point, which is the support given to victims. The programmes that the CPS is rolling out include a programme for closer working between the police and the CPS, to support victims. He will be pleased to know that in the rolling year to September 2023, the CPS prosecuted 12,508 hate crime offences, with a charge rate of 86% and a conviction rate of 84%, and in 78% of those cases, the judge increased the offender’s sentence because they agreed that it was a hate crime.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree that some of the most tragic cases are those in which a family member is murdered? In that context, could coroners courts and the coroner system be modernised? The time that some of my constituents have to wait because of coroners court delays is unacceptable.
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member raises a key point. There is nothing more tragic than the circumstances he outlines. I am happy to meet him to talk about any specific case concerns he has, but more broadly, I am acutely aware of the pressures, and I will look at whether there is anything I can do to ensure that the pressures and stresses on his constituents are alleviated.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I am absolutely certain that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General will have been as shocked as I was to read this week’s report by researchers at Warwick University on the recent handling of rape cases by the CPS. In far too many areas, the picture it paints is simply appalling: poor communication, poor quality control, poor decision-making, outdated attitudes, stereotypes and victim blaming, added to the constant problem of staff being overworked and under-resourced. The one positive is that it was the CPS that commissioned the report in the first place. It has not shied away from the findings, and researchers are clear that the roll-out of Operation Soteria will take things in the right direction. Do the Law Officers agree that we simply cannot leave things there? Will they undertake to come back to the House with an action plan based on the findings of this report, and a clear timetable for its implementation?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising that. I am horrified by a great number of the findings. There is clearly a lot of work here. Things are clearly moving in the right direction, and much of the work being undertaken by the CPS is on liaising with victims and ensuring that their experience is as easy as possible, in the hugely traumatic circumstances. There is a lot more to do on joint working, but I am happy to continue liaising with her, in order to update her as this goes forward.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Robert Courts)
My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that CPS East Midlands is now making charging decisions for rape cases more quickly. In 2022 and 2023, the area was performing better than the national average on reducing victim attrition.
Mr Hollobone
I thank the Crown Prosecution Service for the work it does in prosecuting offenders and seeking justice for victims in Kettering. What overall assessment has the Solicitor General made of the effectiveness of the CPS across the east midlands?
The Solicitor General
The Attorney General visited the CPS East Midlands office in Leicester just last month, and she tells me that she was impressed to hear about the work that prosecutors have been undertaking to tackle recent and historical instances of child sexual abuse in particular, securing lengthy sentences for the perpetrators. That is an excellent example of the importance of joint working between prosecutors and the police, which I have referred to.
Mr Speaker
Are you the shadow MP for Kettering or something? I hope this is linked to the question.
Jim Shannon
I welcome the Minister’s answer. The Minister is responsible not only for Kettering and the east midlands, but for the United Kingdom. What one- to-one support can be offered to victims of sexual crime across the United Kingdom, to improve their experience of the criminal justice system?
The Solicitor General
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in managing to squeeze that in. That was an excellent bit of Order Paper operation. I am happy to meet him to talk about what we are doing in his area to smooth the experience of victims of crime who have to go through the criminal justice system. They have suffered trauma already; the system should not add to that.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Solicitor General (Robert Courts)
The CPS has specially trained prosecutors who work closely with law enforcement agencies to bring to justice those who commit the heinous crimes to which the hon. Lady refers. The CPS has, for example, recently obtained convictions in the first prosecution for trafficking people for organ harvesting. That presented many complex and difficult challenges, and I commend the teams in the CPS for their work on that.
Deidre Brock
Last year, the number of potential UK victims of modern slavery reached a record level, with referrals for women and children both at all-time highs. In 2022, the average wait for a first decision in modern slavery cases was six days. In 2023, it was 23 days. Modern slavery is getting worse, not better, and now the UK Government are actively making progress on seeking to strip people of modern slavery protections. When will the Government accept that this is a crisis, and take the urgent action needed?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Lady is quite right to draw attention to the seriousness of this crime, but the Government accept the urgency, which is why, for example, we have the CPS available to provide early advice to law enforcement in exactly the cases that she refers to. We have specialist prosecutors providing that advice, so that we have the right advice and the right charges against the right people at the right time.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Even in freezing conditions at the start of the year, thousands more men, women and children crossed the channel in small boats. For all the talk that the threat of deportation to Rwanda will act as a deterrent, there is no evidence whatsoever of that deterrent working. Perhaps that is why the Government have changed tack and plan a £3,000 incentive for refugees to get on planes to Rwanda. Does the Solicitor General now accept that the only way to stop the boats is to crush the trafficking gangs and prosecute the criminals?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the country faces a major challenge from the cruel people-smuggling gangs who are exploiting people financially and emotionally. We have to put an end to that. The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill has passed through this House, but there will be further opportunities for debate on its return here. What he has underlined is how important it is that we take action: I agree, and that is what we are doing.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Last week, the Prime Minister’s flagship Rwanda Bill was defeated 10 times in the House of Lords, with calls for the UK Government to protect victims of modern slavery and human trafficking from being removed to Rwanda without their consent until a decision, based on conclusive grounds, about their safety and not being placed at risk of being re-trafficked has been completed. Does the Solicitor General not understand that modern slavery protections for vulnerable children and adults appear to be expendable under his Government?
The Solicitor General
The Bill will be coming back to the Commons next week, when there will be an opportunity to debate those issues further. However, I point out that the treaty between the Government of Rwanda and the UK includes specific provisions that address the need for protection and support for victims of trafficking.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)
Regulars at Attorney General’s questions know that the Law Officers convention prevents me from disclosing outside Government whether or not I have provided advice and the specifics of that advice. Colleagues also know that I take seriously my obligations to ensure that the Government are acting in a lawful manner on both domestic and international fronts.
Imran Hussain
I have listened to the Attorney General, and she will know that the UK Government, as a signatory to the genocide convention, have a clear responsibility not only to punish but—under article 1—to undertake to prevent genocide, as one of the gravest crimes under international law. Given that the Government will still sell arms to the Israeli military after the International Court of Justice found the actions in Gaza to be plausibly in breach of the genocide convention, what legal advice has she provided to the Foreign Office that allows her to fulfil the legal obligation to prevent genocide at the same time as selling arms? If the ICJ ultimately rules that it is genocide, and it is proven that civilians have been killed by UK-sold arms, does that not leave the UK complicit in genocide?
The Attorney General
I believe that I dealt earlier with the substance of the hon. Gentleman’s question. We respect the independence of the ICJ. We have considerable concerns about this case, which is not helpful in the goal of achieving a sustainable ceasefire. We accept that the Court has made a provisional measures order, much of which we wholeheartedly agree with. We would suggest, however, that terms such as genocide not be bandied about until there has been a final ruling of the Court. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asks from a sedentary position what advice I have provided. I have explained clearly why I cannot answer that. However, with your leave, Mr Speaker, I will take him through some of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s decision-making process to inform the Department for Business and Trade on export licensing.
The FCDO continues to assess Israel’s commitment and capability to comply with IHL. The assessments are supported by a detailed evidence base, including analysis of the conflict, reporting from NGOs, international bodies and partner countries, statements from the Israeli Government and military representatives, and Israel’s track record. We have asked the Government of Israel specific questions on their approach to complying with IHL—I did some of that myself to help inform that advice. Applications for export licences are assessed on a case-by-case basis against strategic export licensing criteria, including with regard to IHL—that is a major part of that assessment. We keep licences under careful and continuing review. The Government can amend, suspend, refuse or revoke licences as circumstances require.
Business of the House
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for the week commencing 18 March will include:
Monday 18 March—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill.
Tuesday 19 March—Remaining stages of the Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 20 March—Second Reading of the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill.
Thursday 21 March—General debate on the reports of the Defence Committee and Public Accounts Committee on armed forces readiness and defence equipment, followed by general debate on the reports of the Environmental Audit Committee, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee on food security. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee on the recommendation of the Liaison Committee.
Friday 22 March—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 25 March includes:
Monday 25 March—Remaining stages of the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 26 March—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords], followed by debate on a motion relating to the national policy statement for national networks.
The House will rise for the Easter recess at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 26 March and return on Monday 15 April.
Lucy Powell
First, I pay tribute to Tommy McAvoy, the former Member for Rutherglen. Tommy was a legend of the Labour Whips Office, and the longest ever serving Government Whip. He was highly respected and revered. My thoughts are with his family and friends.
Despite the King’s Speech being only a few months ago, the Government seem to be running scared from their own legislative programme. Where have all their flagship Bills gone? We hear that the Renters (Reform) Bill is being held to ransom, on the brink of collapse because the Government will not stand up to landlords on their own side and end no-fault evictions. Second Reading and Committee stage happened in November, but there has been nothing since. That is a manifesto commitment, so when will we get Report stage? If the Government do not end no-fault evictions, we will.
The Prime Minister’s personal pledge, to much fanfare, of a smokefree generation also seems to have gone up in smoke. Where is the Bill? We have offered the Government Labour’s votes, and they should take them. The Victims and Prisoners Bill is languishing in the Lords. Is that because the Government do not want the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) on infected blood to be agreed to? If that is so, it is pretty shameful. Will the Leader of the House promise Government support for the amended Bill? When will we finally see details of the compensation scheme?
The Sentencing Bill is also stuck in limbo. We have been waiting for weeks for its Committee stage. Is it another victim of this worn-out Government? Apparently, the Justice Secretary and the Prime Minister are at loggerheads over how to proceed, while this week the Government sneaked out further plans to release criminals early because they have lost control of prison places. Is that not exactly what Members should be scrutinising during the passage of the Bill? Will the Leader of the House bring it back?
Much needed and long heralded legislation to regulate English football is still nowhere to be seen. Just this week, the Premier League shelved a new financial settlement for the football pyramid, and the English Football League is responding today. Does the Leader of the House not agree that new powers to impose a fair deal for smaller clubs cannot come soon enough? Fans in Bury, Macclesfield, Derby, Reading, Scunthorpe and, may I add, Portsmouth want their precious clubs saved. If the Conservatives want to make this an election issue in those places, I say bring it on. Let us be really clear: if they do not want to regulate football governance, then we will.
I notice the Leader of the House has not announced any further provision beyond Monday for ping-pong on the emergency Rwanda legislation. Is that because it has now been pushed back to after Easter? Some emergency! To be honest, I do not want to hear “as parliamentary time allows” when there is an abundance of it. Do we really need time on the Floor of the House for so many statutory instruments or Committee stage of the Pedicabs (London) Bill? The Government have the time, but on those issues and more they do not have the support of their own side. It is as if they do not have the numbers. With every week that passes, their majority gets smaller and smaller. This week, it was another defection. But the reasons for their dwindling numbers do not make for pretty reading. In no particular order: tractor porn, drug abuse, a conviction for paedophilia, breaking parliamentary rules on paid lobbying, groping, misleading Parliament, flashing at staff, tantrums because they were not given peerages, and eating camel penis. It might sound ridiculous, but it is actually not funny. It all brings Parliament into disrepute and drags our politics through the gutter.
And now, this week, we have had overt racism from the Conservative party’s biggest donor. I had to check for myself yesterday that the Prime Minister really said that he was “pleased”—he was pleased—that this man, who said a black woman MP should be shot and that Indians should climb on the roof of trains, supported his party. Is the Leader of the House pleased? Will she use his resources in her marginal Portsmouth North constituency? Surely, if he is a racist, which he clearly is, he has no place in the Conservative party and his money should be given back.
The truth is that the Conservatives cannot implement their own legislative programme. They have lost control. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) said last night:
“the Conservative party is unleadable and…for the sake of the nation, it’s better to go early than allow this psychodrama to continue.”
He’s right, isn’t he?
Penny Mordaunt
May I start by wishing all who are marking it in the UK and around the world a blessed Ramadan? I join the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) to Tommy McAvoy. I am sure many Members will pay tribute to him in the coming days and weeks. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for her service and friendship over many years. This House may be losing her, but I know she has many more years of public service ahead of her.
The hon. Member for Manchester Central focuses first on the legislative programme. She will know that 26 Bills have already been introduced in this Session and that four have reached Royal Assent. She will know that last Session we did 43 Bills, and broke many records in terms of private Members’ Bills and the amount of legislation we were able to get through. She will know the passage of the Bills that are going through both Houses at the moment, and she will also know that we will shortly bring through a Bill on football governance. This is a programme of work that we initiated following a review that was conducted with the help of many clubs around the country. When we bring legislation to the House, it will need to have the confidence of the English Football League, and, having attended many events with the EFL myself, I know that that is clear and understood.
The hon. Lady claimed that the Conservatives had no energy left for legislation, suggesting that we were not bringing measures forward and that we were a zombie Parliament, but I am afraid that it is the Opposition who are the zombies in this Chamber. The House rises early when the Opposition are not opposing. The Committee stage of the Finance Bill was completed in 30 minutes, and in recent times the Opposition have found it hard even to find speakers for their own debates. It is they who are displaying zombie tendencies. It is often tempting to refer to the Leader of the Opposition as the Knight of the Living Dead, and in stark contrast I commend the always energetic and vibrant stance taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker); I think the point he was making in that interview was that the plan is working.
Let me now come to the very serious issue that the hon. Lady raised about Mr Hester’s remarks. They were racist and abhorrent, and—I fully appreciate—threatening to the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who I understand has referred the matter to the police.
My party is financed by fundraising and donations—notably money raised from raffles—including donations from private individuals. There might be some who would come to this Dispatch Box today and attempt to argue that such a refund was not practically possible or warranted, but I am not going to attempt to do that. The point that the hon. Lady has made is not concerned with the practicalities of a refund, the consequences to the payroll of Conservative Campaign Headquarters, or the ability of my party to fight a general election. No, no; it is a point of principle, and I respect that. She could not have been clearer in what she has said today. She has stated that it is wrong to take funds from people who say horrible things, no matter when they were said, and that when there is an issue, funds should be returned. She has been clear about that today, and she has said that that is the right thing to do.
If, for example, someone said of Hamas that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, as Dale Vince has said, or said that my colleagues and I should be “taken out and shot”, as the RMT union boss Steve Hedley has said, the hon. Lady would presumably think it wrong to hang on to funds donated to Labour by them—or by an organisation branded “institutionally sexist”. I believe that during Tim Roache’s time as GMB general secretary, when he ran what has been described as a “casting couch culture”—menacing young women in the union—the Labour party took 12 million quid from him.
Those three charmers alone have contributed £15 million to the Labour party, and presumably, immediately following this session, the hon. Lady will demand that it is repaid. To be precise, and to assist her in that matter, let me add that those donations were made directly to the central Labour party, Labour MPs, Members of the Scottish Parliament, councillors, the Mayor of Manchester—she might like to mention that this weekend—the deputy leader of the Labour party, and the Leader of the Opposition.
If Labour is sincere and this it is not a political stunt, it will commit itself to repaying those funds, and there would be some additional upsides to doing so. The scurrilous suggestions that Labour’s pro “Stop Oil” policies were anything to do with Mr Vince’s donations could no longer be deployed, and nor could the charge that Labour Members would not support our legislation to protect the public’s access to the services they pay for because their party was in the pockets of militant trade unions—but I am not holding my breath, because I know that Labour Members say one thing and do another. They have dropped their £28 billion decarbonisation spending pledge, yet they keep the policy. They say that they will not tolerate pro-genocide chants, yet they have restored the whip to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald). They say that they back our tax cuts but they will not vote for them, and as a consequence they now cannot say how they would fund NHS appointments, breakfast clubs, NHS equipment, dentistry appointments, home insulation, their own state-owned energy company, and their wealth fund. No amount of confected drama and virtue signalling can disguise the fact that it is the same old Labour party, the same old hypocrisy and the same old games.
This week, in the real world outside the Westminster bubble, which is where we are focused, cancer deaths among middle-aged people are down by a third, revised forecasts show that the economy is growing and, for the eighth month in a row, real wages are rising. The plan is working, unlike Labour’s line of attack, and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne is very excited about it.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
It is good to hear inclusive politics. May I ask the Leader of the House whether, following consultations, there might be a statement before or after Easter on inclusivity in Parliament? We rightly want to embrace and value difference and diversity, whether of a person’s race, gender, other characteristics, background or experience. The word that is missing is “sex”.
Over the last five years, those who are gender critical have raised all sorts of issues, including the constant use of puberty blockers for children and the attack on the LGB Alliance for not swallowing what Stonewall and Mermaids persuaded many Government Departments and agencies to do, which was to disregard sex completely.
While wanting to support trans people and make sure that they can have a life free from bigotry and fear, would it be possible for the House to examine its own policies on inclusiveness and try to ensure that the word “sex” is included along with the other characteristics for which people should not be discriminated against?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend raises a very important point, and I know that many members of the House of Commons Commission will have heard what he has said. This is a very important matter. When the Government have put forward measures—for example, to protect single-sex spaces, which are important and valued by many people in this country—we have also been reassuring about what that means for trans people and those living in a different gender. It is perfectly possible to do both, and I think that the House having a further focus on the issue is a very good suggestion.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
May I, too, wish everyone a happy Ramadan and pay my respects to the family of Tommy McAvoy?
Well, here we are again: trying to get the answers that the Leader of the House does not want to—and indeed never does—supply to our sticky, inconvenient questions. I will begin with the dream that dare not speak its name here: Brexit. The Resolution Foundation tells us that the UK’s goods exports and imports have contracted by far more than those of any other G7 country, largely due to Brexit. Things are now so dire in Brexitland that even news of a GDP uplift of just 0.2% is fallen upon by Brexiteers like starving pigeons on the crust of the stalest bread. The Conservative party aims to shrink suffering public services even further, as evidenced in last week’s Budget, so should there not be some discussion, or even a debate, about the huge uplift in civil service jobs that Brexit seems to have required since the EU referendum in 2016?
Despite all the glorious promises of strength and environmental protections in this freer, fairer and better-off Britian, we are seeing green policies abandoned right, left and centre by both the Tory and Labour parties. A hapless Minister even tried to tell us yesterday that building new gas-powered plants is good for the environment—a suggestion that seems to be supported by shadow Environment Ministers too. Once again, Labour presents one face down here and entirely another up in Scotland. Frustratingly, all the warning signs of Brexit impacts, across a huge range of sectors, come in bits and pieces. Surely what is needed is for the Government to collate all the impacts and present the results to the British people, so that they can properly judge whether Brexit has been a success. Can the Leader of the House help to facilitate that?
There was a little good news this week: hopefully, there will be some proper Government redress for victims of the shocking Post Office Horizon scandal, although there is still no comfort for the infected blood scandal victims. I met the International Consortium of British Pensioners recently, and I fear that another scandal is about to break in the form of frozen pensions. There are now so many scandals that it is hard to keep track. Something does not work in this place if so many can build up under successive Governments of different political hues.
Unfortunately, the Leader of the House’s party distinguished itself again this week by choosing money over morality in its grubby handling of the racist comments allegedly made about one of our colleagues in this House. At the very least, a debate to re-examine how parties are funded is called for.
The “Seven Up!” series was recently deemed to be the most influential television series of the last 50 years. Well, 14 years is well and truly up for this terrible Government, but apparently we cannot be put out of our Tory misery yet because their junior Members have debts and need the extra months to build up some reserves. Does the Leader of the House agree that that is not much of an excuse?
Penny Mordaunt
I welcome the hon. Lady’s welcome of the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill, which I hope her party will support. She knows that we will shortly bring forward measures to rectify the situation on infected blood. These scandals did not arise under this Administration, but we have gripped the issues. The infected blood issue had been left for decades, but we have investigated and set up inquiries and are compensating the victims. I hope the House will support us in doing so on both matters.
The hon. Lady insinuates that I dodge questions, but I do not. She said six weeks ago that she would write to me with a list of all the questions I have not answered, but she has not yet done so. The SNP never fails to disappoint.
The hon. Lady asks about sound administration and about money over morality, in a week in which it has been discovered that the Scottish Government have presided over a six-figure sum of Scottish taxpayers’ money being spent on an art installation that promises a
“magical, erotic journey through a distinctly Scottish landscape.”
That is known to the rest of us as a hardcore porn movie.
I am glad that the SNP is interested in good governance and improving administration, particularly with reference to Brexit. Let me see how I can help to improve the Scottish Government’s effectiveness in that regard. There has been criticism this week that the SNP is blowing taxpayers’ cash on copious embassies and lobbying to rejoin the EU. That camper van must be out of the police pound soon, so why not turn it into a mobile embassy that can drive between Brussels and European capitals to lobby for EU membership? If the SNP wants to continue funding innovative film projects, perhaps it could double up and ask Cliff Richard to come along and produce a sequel to “Summer Holiday”, which would have the added bonus of cutting down the SNP’s need to blow more taxpayers’ cash on overseas jollies. I am here to help.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I have a lot of time for the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), but I need to clear my name. I strode across Victoria Tower Gardens yesterday to put my boot into my miserabilist colleagues who are demanding an early general election. I said to Gary Gibbon that, with incomes rising, inflation falling, the economy growing and the plan working, why 2 May? I am rolling up my sleeves to man the ramparts in November.
My question is: can we have an urgent debate on foot in mouth disease?
Penny Mordaunt
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) is in the Chamber to set the record straight and to request a debate on foot and mouth disease. Because of his energetic question, I will write to the Secretary of State to ask him to consider what my hon. Friend has said. As for the rest of what my hon. Friend said, we thank him for it.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I declare an interest, as I am a member of the Tyneside Irish centre, which is handily placed because of its proximity to St James’s Park in Newcastle upon Tyne city centre. With that in mind, I wish all members of the Irish diaspora a very happy St Patrick’s day on Sunday.
The Committee is still open for applications for Westminster Hall debates on Tuesday mornings and Thursday afternoons after the Easter recess, but we are a little disappointed that we have not been allocated a little more Chamber time before the recess.
The cost of childcare is a significant barrier to work for many parents, and the increase in funded places will be welcome but, with the first phase coming into effect in April, many parents are reporting difficulty in obtaining the promised funded places and very significant cost increases for the non-funded element. Can we have a debate in Government time on the impact of the first phase of the scheme; on the accessibility and affordability of the scheme; and on whether the scheme, as it currently stands, will effectively remove the childcare barrier to work and fulfil its promise to parents?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for all the work he is doing for his Committee. I hear his appeal for more time and I will soon be able to give him some information about that.
As for our childcare policy, this is a priority for the Secretary of State for Education and I will make sure that she has heard his concerns today. It is one of the many elements we are bringing forward to enable people to remain economically active and grow their household income. It is a very important service, which is why have done this. It is an unprecedented, generous package for parents and we must ensure that all parents who want to access it can do so.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Yesterday, I hosted my second parliamentary fertility treatment drop-in, where we had the likes of Fertility Matters at Work, LGBT Mummies and Fertility Network UK. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time we looked at access to fertility treatment and ensured that employers provide time off work for people undertaking it? May we have a debate in Government time to discuss this important subject?
Penny Mordaunt
On behalf of all of us, I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she does on this important matter. It is primarily an issue for the Department of Health and Social Care, but some of the issues she raises will fall to the Department for Work and Pensions. I will therefore make sure that both Secretaries of State have heard what she has said today. This is an increasingly a concern and an important matter to many couples, and we must ensure that we are doing all we can to support them.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
May I press the Leader of the House again on the football governance Bill and say how urgent it is? Many of us, on both sides of the House, have clubs in our constituencies that have been on the verge of going under, and that situation is only going to get worse. Will the Government bring the putative Bill to the Floor of the House as soon as possible?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman has my undertaking to do that. It is important that we bring that Bill forward; the football pyramid, at every level, needs to be supported. I know that many hon. Members will have had a great deal of input into the Bill and we must make sure it is perfect when it comes to this House.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
During a recent visit to the Eastwood Academy, an outstanding non-selective secondary school that aims to help every child fulfil their potential, the head told me that a year 10 student had been removed from school mid-term in favour of elective home education. The student was doing incredibly well, having come from a challenging background. The head had only 10 days to try to engage with the parents and they would not even come into the school for a meeting. Please may we have a debate in Government time on the process by which children can suddenly be ripped out of school, and an assurance that when children are being electively home educated, they are getting the education they rightfully deserve?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. She will appreciate that these situations are often incredibly complicated and involve many factors. However, it is important to ensure that we know where children are and what education they are getting. It is particularly important after the pandemic that we ensure that all children are getting access to a good education.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) introduced the Children Not in School (Registers, Support and Orders) Bill on 11 December and its Second Reading is scheduled for Friday. I hope we can ensure that the Bill makes progress in this Session. It is important and, of course, it would not impede in any way people who want to home educate their children, as many do in a very good way indeed.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
We had a debate in Westminster Hall on 12 December on arms export licences for sales to Israel. On the same day, the Foreign Secretary decided he was satisfied that there was
“good evidence to support a judgment that Israel is committed to complying with IHL”—
international humanitarian law. It is Liberal Democrat policy to have a presumption of denial for arms sales to countries on the most recent Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office list of territories designated as human rights priority countries. May we have a debate in Government time on that list of human rights priority countries, so that we may better interdict Iranian arms supplies to Hamas and Hezbollah, but also look again at UK arms exports to Israel?
Penny Mordaunt
I will certainly ensure that the Department for Business and Trade, which has oversight of this matter, is aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said. The House scrutinises the policies and procedures that surround arms export controls. We are very transparent and we have one of the most rigorous regimes in the world. I am sure that we would welcome further scrutiny of it, because I think it is a sound policy.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Last week, we saw a Budget that delivered lower taxes and high economic growth. It contained measures, such as freezing fuel duty, support for childcare and changes to child benefit, from which areas like Gillingham and Rainham will benefit. However, will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to make a statement on how the 20 town centres were chosen for levelling-up investment and regeneration, and how the criteria were applied? Gillingham has not had any funding, despite representations to the Secretary of State, so my constituents, like any other constituents, want to know how the criteria are applied and that decisions are made on a fair, open and transparent basis.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for being a champion for his constituents, in particular by trying to get levelling-up funding. He will know that the processes that assess where funding is directed are independent of Ministers, and that the criteria and grading are transparent. He will also know that where people have not been successful, the Department has quite often worked with local authorities and Members of the House to improve the bids put forward. I encourage my hon. Friend to go and talk to the Secretary of State, and I will ensure he knows that my hon. Friend has raised the issue today.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Oldham is a wonderful place but it is not without challenges. The local community is concerned about the number of young people who have been drawn into gang activity and who are at risk of child criminal exploitation. Figures over the last two years show that 312 young people have been identified as being at risk of exploitation. We have had five section 60 stop and searches in place over the last year because of the number of knife incidents. Can we have a debate in Government time on what is being done in urban areas where criminal exploitation is not being checked?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important matter. I encourage him to raise it with his local police and crime commissioner, as I am sure he has. I will ensure that the Home Secretary has heard what he has said today, but I would encourage him to address the issue with his local constabulary and the police and crime commissioner.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Education is the bedrock to levelling up in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. I am delighted by the improvement since 2010, with some 92% of schools now rated “good” or “outstanding”. Mill Hill Primary Academy and New Ford Academy in Smallthorne have both recently received “outstanding” status.
Sadly, Labour’s abysmal and dismal record looms large and haunts Stoke-on-Trent. Thanks to Labour, 88 schools are languishing in disastrous private finance initiative deals. Recent hikes to the charges facing those schools could put staff livelihoods at risk, as well as undermining the very fabric of what we are trying to do, which is to turn education around in our great city after Labour’s abysmal failure. Will the Leader of the House assist me in securing an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate so that I can raise these matters directly with the relevant Department, in order to ensure that those 88 schools can and will be protected?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend, the teachers, the parents and everyone who has worked in his constituency to improve education standards. That is very good news indeed. But I know, as a founder member of the “no to PFI” campaign, of the legacy issues with which many public organisations are dealing. I know, too, that my hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner on trying to get these matters resolved, ensuring that the commercial negotiations that need to take place to protect those public services and those working in them are properly under way.
Given that Education questions are not until the end of April, I will make sure that what he has said today has been heard by the Secretary of State, and also by the Treasury, which has done much under our Administration to try to rectify the damage that these contracts have done. He will know how to apply for a debate.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Sub-postmasters are rightly being put at the centre of the Government’s response to the Horizon scandal. Last week, the Leader of the House told me that the Paymaster General was going to tour around the United Kingdom to meet all the groups of the infected and affected in the contaminated blood scandal. I have had a letter from the Paymaster General, which does not give me any more information, and all the groups are telling me that they have had no contact with the Paymaster General’s office to organise that tour. It is nine weeks until Sir Brian Langstaff produces his final report on the infected blood inquiry. Can we have a statement from the Paymaster General, so that we can all understand exactly what is happening and what this tour will do? Many people are concerned that it may be a delaying tactic, and we all want to get compensation to those who have been infected and affected by the scandal.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the right hon. Lady for raising this matter again. In doing so, it sends a message to those who have been waiting far too long for redress that they are at the forefront of our minds. I met the Paymaster General again this week. He is making good progress towards getting this resolved. I know that this is frustrating for the right hon. Lady and all those involved with her all-party parliamentary group, but the Paymaster General will come to the House to give an update at the first available opportunity. We are now moving towards the end of this process. What the Paymaster General has discussed with me has given me confidence in that respect, and he feels strongly that he wants to meet people directly. There will be more information coming out on that, but I do understand the right hon. Lady’s impatience.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Leader of the House will know that I welcome the support the Government have given to pensioners, with an 8.5% increase in pensions in April and the triple lock remaining firmly in place. However, the tax threshold will consume much of the support that pensioners have been given, and the national insurance reduction has done nothing for them. I ask the Leader of the House to arrange an urgent debate on improving the quality of life for pensioners in the United Kingdom who have worked hard all their lives, contributing to our nation’s success, and deserve a high-quality retirement.
Penny Mordaunt
This Government can be very proud of their record in this respect. I remember when we came to power in 2010 the appalling maladministration of pension and tax credits that left many people trapped in poverty and misery. The triple lock and uprating of the state pension by 8.5% from April this year will protect pensioner incomes, and the state pension has increased by £3,700 since 2010. It is very important to ensure that people are being lifted out of poverty and looked after when the cost of living rises due to heating bills and other demands that are made on their purse as they age. We have lifted 200,000 pensioners out of absolute poverty and improved the lives of many more, and that is a record to be proud of. I will make sure that the issue that my hon. Friend raises is heard by the Secretary of State.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
This week, we mark the start of the 40th anniversary of the miners’ strikes of 1984-85. Tomorrow, I will attempt to bring my Miners’ Strike (Pardons) Bill forward in this place and invite the Leader of the House to join me in supporting it. Beyond that, can we make arrangements for a debate in Government time on the potential merits of a public inquiry into the political interference that took place at that time?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the advert for his Bill; I wish him well with it. The other issue he raises would be a matter for the Cabinet Office. I understand why he makes the point, but I suspect that it will not be on the list of Cabinet Office priorities for a public inquiry.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Can we have a debate on the shocking decision by Labour’s Barnet Council to approve overdevelopment in Victoria Quarter in New Barnet and to concrete over green fields in Whalebones Park in High Barnet? This is a disgraceful decision that demonstrates the ominous situation in the terrible event that Labour were to win power at the general election, because its leader wants to bulldoze the green belt as well.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for yet again raising her concerns over particular developments in her area. She will know that we have worked hard to strike the right balance in ensuring that we are building to enable people to have cost-effective housing and achieve their ambitions of home ownership. She will know that the next Levelling Up, Housing and Communities questions are not until later in April, so I will ensure that the particular local issue that she is campaigning on is brought to the attention of the Secretary of State.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I want to raise with the Leader of the House a shocking statistic: research shows that more than 300,000 people died as a result of this Government’s austerity policies. On top of those deaths, austerity has driven down wages, caused the economy to stagnate, and ripped the heart out of so many public services that our communities rely upon. Despite that, the Government plan a further £20 billion of cuts, so can we have an urgent debate on the specific issue of the damage caused by austerity economics, and why it need to be ditched once and for all?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to remind him of the state of the country when we took office in 2010. Youth unemployment was running at 45%, and there were 400,000 more children and 200,000 more pensioners in absolute poverty than there are today. In my constituency, my hospital was in the top five for those with MRSA infections. We had crumbling school buildings. The Labour party’s Building Schools for the Future programme had not done any work, and secondary schools were excluded from it— I could go on.
The hon. Gentleman points to the fact that if Labour got in, it would repeat that exercise. Currently, it is unable in its spending plans to afford NHS appointments, breakfast clubs, NHS equipment, dentistry appointments, home insulation, the job bonus or its plans for wealth funds and a state-owned energy company. We have brought back sound money. The Labour party does not understand that. If he really wants to complain about what we had to do to get this country back on track, he should look to his own party and its behaviour pre 2010.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
While the shambolic Labour leadership at Kirklees Council are busy fighting among themselves, with resignations, sackings, and the jailing of a Labour councillor for perverting the course of justice, can we have a debate on all the millions of pounds of Government investment that is flowing into the Colne and Holme valleys and Lindley: a brand new A&E unit; the multibillion pound trans-Pennine rail upgrade; the West Yorkshire investment zone, boosting the national health innovation campus of the University of Huddersfield; £100 million of levelling-up cash for the indoor market; the Penistone line upgrade; Marsden Mills; a £30 million teaching block at Greenhead College; and much, much more?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on listing the considerable achievements that he and his local community have been able to achieve. It is a great track record and one to be proud of. It sits in stark contrast to what has become a distinctive feature of Labour-run councils: in Birmingham, bankruptcy; in Liverpool, police investigations into corruption; Sandwell saved from complete failure by Government intervention; and in Tower Hamlets, Labour’s vote-rigging legacy is still causing havoc for residents.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Scottish Government have built more affordable homes than any other country in the United Kingdom: 126,000 over the past 17 years. Meanwhile, there has been a staggering 76% fall in affordable housing alone in London in this financial year. Will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out her response to a call from the housing charity Crisis, which said that the UK Government’s three-year freeze on local housing allowance is one of the biggest drivers of homelessness?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady asks, I will deliver. I will make a statement now: the Mayor of London’s record on home building, crime, and support for small businesses and charities is a shambles, and he should be voted out of office.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
When we build thousands of new homes to ensure that people are decently and affordably housed, as we are doing in my constituency, we also put thousands of extra motorists on to the existing road network. The A505 between Leighton Buzzard and Dunstable has seen four fatalities in six years, and 50 accidents, and Bedford Road in Houghton Regis is not safe. What can we do to ensure that we recognise the impact on the existing road network when we build thousands of new homes?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend again for his work to ensure that developments in his constituency are matched by investment in infrastructure and services, whether that is healthcare, which he has campaigned on enormously, or transport, which he has raised again today. I will ensure that the Secretary of State for Transport has heard what my hon. Friend has said, and he can raise it with him directly on 21 March. I congratulate my hon. Friend, because this is an important aspect of ensuring that, as developments progress, his community gets the services it needs.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
The greater the scandal, the greater obligation on us to act with speed and clarity to provide remedies. Notwithstanding yesterday’s welcome news on the Horizon scandal Bill, we have not acted fast enough, and now we are not acting with enough clarity, because the Department for Business and Trade is more than a fortnight late in providing the explanatory memorandum for its supplementary estimate. No other Department has missed the deadline; only the Department for Business and Trade. We cannot see where the budget might lie for remedies and redress for the GLO—group litigation order—litigants, whose heroic tenacity actually allowed us to overturn the convictions that the Bill proposes. Will the Leader of the House join me in urging the Department to provide that explanatory memorandum quickly and, if not, may we have a debate in Government time to get to the bottom of what on earth is going on?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. I will certainly ensure that the Department has heard what he has said and that the House is presented with papers in good time to be able to scrutinise the legislation. He will know the complex issues that surround the Bill and the work that has gone on to ensure that the Bill was brought before the House in the best form possible to make swift passage through the House. There is concurrent activity to ensure that what the Bill enables is ready to be implemented once it leaves this House and gains Royal Assent. He raises an important matter. I will ensure that the Department has heard what he has said.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Last Friday, on International Women’s Day, I had a fantastic time in my constituency celebrating the “Let Girls Play” campaign’s “Biggest Ever Football Session”. Schools including Castlefort JMI, Pelsall Village, Ryders Hayes, St John’s, St Anne’s, and Manor Primary in Streetly all came together. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking Walsall FC Foundation, including Swifty the mascot, Streetly Academy and everyone who was involved in organising the day and, we hope, in encouraging and inspiring the next generation of Lionesses?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on all her work, and join her in thanks and praise for Walsall FC Foundation, Swifty the mascot, and everyone involved. The proof of focus in this area is in the statistics: the BBC recently analysed the uptake in women playing the national game, and there are now twice as many registered female football teams in England than there were just seven years ago. That is a tremendous thing to celebrate.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Members will know that the shared prosperity fund was initially a replacement for EU funds—and a poor imitation in the view of many. Despite Northern Ireland having the highest levels of economic inactivity and the lowest proportional SPF spend, money allocated to that fund has been repurposed into last month’s Stormont deal and effectively raided to fund vital services. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate in Government time to discuss that fund and how money can be properly returned to levelling up and to supporting employability for carers, the long-term unemployed, vulnerable young people and people living with disabilities in Northern Ireland?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady raises an important point. The opportunity to speak directly to the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box is not until 24 April, so I will ensure that he has heard her concerns.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Labour demands that a large donation to the Conservatives be returned because of a racist comment made five years ago, but does my right hon. Friend recall that Mark Serwotka, the head of the Public and Commercial Services Union, said six years ago that Israel “created” the antisemitism row in the Labour party? The Board of Deputies said at the time that that was antisemitic, but Serwotka was subsequently elected president of the whole TUC. Applying the same standards, should not Labour return the tens of millions that it has received from trade union donations?
Penny Mordaunt
My right hon. and learned Friend has provided yet another example to add to the three that I gave earlier in this session, so it is £15 million and rising. We wait to see what the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) does.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Can we have a debate about Ofcom’s approach to GB News and its alleged breaches—found breaches, in fact—of the broadcasting code, as well as its ownership? Is it not time that we had a proper wide-ranging Ofcom inquiry into whether Sir Paul Marshall, who has endorsed very right-wing and extreme views, is a fit and proper person to hold a broadcasting licence, and whether the editorial policy is in breach of the rules set down by this House?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian and will know how to secure a debate. The Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee is smiling and wiggling his eyebrows at him along the Bench. The work that Ofcom does is incredibly important. It has raised a number of concerns with that channel about particular broadcasters and presenters; it has not raised matters of concern with regard to the channel itself. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to explore those matters further, he knows what he can do.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
In working with Durham Constabulary and Darlington Borough Council civic enforcement, I have been shocked to learn of the widespread sale of illegal vapes and illicit tobacco, sales to children, and the grooming and entry of children into acting as agents for that organised crime, which is akin to county lines. What work are the Government doing across the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to tackle that deeply troubling issue, and will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on it?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend will know how he can secure a debate. Things that could be discussed on that occasion include the £30 million a year of new funding for enforcement agencies—including trading standards, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Border Force—to tackle the illicit market and under-age sales. There is a new joint illicit tobacco strategy and a new illicit tobacco taskforce, which will be backed by £100 million of new funding over the next five years. It is a very important issue for the Government, and I welcome further scrutiny of it.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
With only four bank branches left in my constituency, I thought my days of moaning about branch closures were over, but on Tuesday, Lloyds informed me that it was closing the Bank of Scotland branches in Renfrew and Bridge of Weir. Renfrew is a growing town with a population of 25,000 that will not have a single branch, and the village of Bridge of Weir—where doing anything without a car is difficult—will also not have a branch. Can we have a debate on local banking? For so many, that is now left to the Post Office, albeit in simple terms, and it is fair to say that the Post Office’s reputation with the public is in the gutter.
Penny Mordaunt
Those are important services for any community, and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise concerns about what is happening in his constituency. It is fortunate that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up is on the Front Bench—he has saved me the stamp that it would cost to raise this matter with him—because his Department has done a lot of work to ensure that even though banking services might not have bricks-and-mortar locations, services can be retained in local communities, including communities that are very isolated and rural. I will take a belt-and-braces approach: I will write to the Secretary of State and ask his officials, who have put together guidance on best practice in this area, to contact the hon. Gentleman’s office.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
When Mark Murphy was a presenter at BBC Radio Suffolk, it is fair to say that we had a bit of a mixed relationship—he was probably the most robust questioner I have ever encountered. However, last September, he took over as the chief executive officer of Cancer Support Suffolk, and has done an exceptional job with his team. I visited that charity last week, and it has made some changes: people do not need to be referred by the hospital to go in and have a meeting, and it now supports family members, not just those with cancer.
One of the things that Mark raised with me, though, is that he thinks there should be national screening for prostate cancer and a level playing field for all forms of cancer, to make sure we catch it early, and that we should work with some hard-to-reach communities to raise awareness. Will the Leader of the House support me in that campaign, and recognise the work that Mark Murphy has done and how it could save lives in Suffolk?
Penny Mordaunt
I add my congratulations and thanks to those of my hon. Friend for those individuals who have done so much to improve services and the patient experience in his area. We have had some good news on cancer outcomes today. That is very welcome, and it is because of those people—their attention to detail and their efforts—that those achievements have been secured.
As my hon. Friend knows, diagnostics are absolutely critical to ensuring that people have good outcomes. That is why we have invested so much in the 160 new diagnostic test centres in a whole raft of therapy areas across the country. I will make sure that the Secretary of State for Health has heard about my hon. Friend’s particular interest in this area. We obviously have new opportunities to use data that the Department of Health and Social Care is collecting to ensure we improve patient outcomes everywhere.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Last week, I visited Zeelandia UK. Besides showing me its range of products, I had a Zoom call with the managing director of that company’s Ukrainian factory, who set up “Bake for Ukraine”, a project that helps bring fresh bread to local people by sending decommissioned commercial bakery equipment from the UK, which is converted and given to small bakeries in local villages. Tesco already contributes to that scheme, but could the Leader of the House suggest how it could be promoted to all colleagues, to encourage more companies to contribute and raise awareness of this wonderful project?
Penny Mordaunt
In addition to asking a question, the hon. Lady has provided her own answer by sharing with the House this very impressive scheme, which shows the power of business as a force for good in the world. It will be in Hansard; I hope that the media will pick it up; and I am sure that everyone in this Chamber will do their best to promote the scheme.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
In recent weeks, I have been working with Sky News on its investigation into the purchase and misuse of catapults—sadly, all too often by children and young people—to kill and maim wildlife and pets. All too often, videos are then shared on social media through channels such as WhatsApp. Can we have a statement from the Home Secretary on introducing criminal sanctions for the irresponsible sale and use of catapults to kill and damage wildlife?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he is continuing to do on matters such as that, and also in other areas of animal welfare. He will know that Home Office questions is not until 15 April, so I will make the Home Secretary aware of what he has said. This is a disturbing and growing phenomenon. In addition to causing animal suffering, it is, as we now know, an indicator of what those perpetrators may go on to do and other crimes they may commit. It is a serious matter, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising it.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Can we have a debate in Government time on the urgent need for an employment Bill, particularly to protect those on very precarious app-based contracts? I have had several taxi drivers and delivery drivers off-boarded by Uber and Just Eat, but they do not seem to have any recourse to complaint, despite its affecting their employment prospects and their incomes. The Government need to do an awful lot more to protect people in these circumstances.
Penny Mordaunt
I will make sure that the Department for Work and Pensions has heard the hon. Lady’s concerns. We have had labour market statistics out today, and in addition to the good news on wage growth as people progress through work, since 2010 unemployment has halved, absolute poverty has gone down and there are 800 more people in jobs for every single day that we have been in office.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I bring good news from Kettering, because Kettering has made it into the top 10 of the most dog-loving places in the UK. A study by pet insurer Waggel has found that, in Kettering, for every 1,000 people there were 252 of our furry friends. With so many local green spaces and countryside areas where residents can take their dog for a walk, such as the hugely popular Wicksteed park, it is clear that Kettering is a great place to own and love a dog. May we have a statement from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on celebrating Kettering as one of the most dog-friendly places in the whole country?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing us the good news, which we were all hoping for and anticipating, that there are more waggy tails per square mile in Kettering than anywhere else in the UK. I would encourage local authorities and communities to look to the example that has been set by Kettering, and I congratulate everyone who has made it such a dog- friendly place.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Parents from the Northwich part of my constituency are rightly lobbying me about specialist educational provision in the Cheshire West and Chester council area. Could we have a debate in Government time about the sufficiency of resources given to councils and powers to deal with education and health partners in this field of special educational needs?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important matter. He will know that this is not just a priority for the Secretary of State for Education, but something very personal to her that she has a particular personal interest in and focus on. We have increased the funding available for special educational needs and we have also invested in specialist schools, but I will make sure that the Secretary of State is aware of his concerns as the next Education questions is not until the end of April.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Would my right hon. Friend make time for an additional debate on farming? Does she agree with me that the Prime Minister’s recent announcement of £220 million to deploy new technology to boost productivity in the farming sector in North Shropshire and the rest of England compares very favourably with Welsh Labour’s policy, which would force farmers in Clwyd South and the rest of Wales to reduce their productive land by 20%? That will result in a 122,200 reduction in Welsh livestock numbers, 5,500 lost jobs and a £199 million loss to Wales’s economy, all of which has led to mass protests by the farming community throughout Wales.
Penny Mordaunt
I commend my hon. Friend and the farmers he represents for all the work they are doing to fight against those plans. He is right that they will cost jobs, and they are an appalling use of good agricultural land. That is why just 3% of the farming community trusts the Welsh Government, and 87% of farmers believe that that misguided farming policy would not benefit their work or business or, very importantly, deliver a positive outcome for the environment. I think Labour in Wales needs to start listening to farmers.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
Despite consistently delivering some of the highest economic growth in the country, North West Leicestershire remains without access to the rail network, leaving my constituents completely reliant on their own vehicles, taxis or local bus services. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending the 1,000 North West Leicestershire residents who signed a petition calling for the reinstatement of the original routes for the Nos. 16, 29 and 29A bus services, administered by Arriva Midlands East? These bus services are essential for my constituents, so can we have a statement from a Minister on why bus services in the area continue to be curtailed, when North West Leicestershire continues to make such a massive contribution to the UK economy?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank all the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and the businesses in his constituency for what they are doing to grow our economy and strengthen their community. The next questions to the Transport Secretary will be on 21 March, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to raise this directly with the Secretary of State.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
I recently visited our local sea cadets in Scunthorpe to see their new and improved facilities, which have been backed by Government funding. A serving or former cadet can always be recognised by their manners, common sense and can-do approach, and I was incredibly proud to meet three former Scunthorpe cadets who have gone on to serve our country as Royal Marines Commandos. Will my right hon. Friend join me in commending our fantastic cadet leaders and our local young cadets, who we are incredibly proud of, and would she support a debate on how we can continue to support cadets in making their genuine, positive contribution to our society?
Penny Mordaunt
As my hon. Friend was asking her question, there were audible noises of support from around the Chamber. I think we all appreciate the work that the Sea Cadet organisation does. As well as being a fantastic escalator of talent and giving young people opportunities and confidence, it does a huge amount for local communities. I am sure that we would all agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments. We have done a huge amount to expand access to not just sea cadet schemes but other cadet schemes, by supporting schools in setting up their own branches, but there is always more to do, and her question has reminded us of the benefits of doing it.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
All of us across the House appreciate the vital role played by local individuals and volunteer groups in constituencies. One such group in my constituency is the Friends Together Club, based in Coatbridge, which has been running for seven years and makes a real difference to the lives of 150 local people with additional support needs. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the thrilling news that the following individuals are to be recognised by the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta? Liam Hackett will receive the cross of merit and Ena Hamill the silver medal, while Elainne McDermott, Patrick Allen, Yvonne Crowley and Elizabeth Locke will receive a bronze medal. This is a truly outstanding recognition, and richly deserved. May we have a debate in Government time about the importance of community volunteers across the United Kingdom, and the valuable work that they do for us?
Penny Mordaunt
It is a shame that applause is not allowed in the House and would be out of order, because I think we would all want to give those individuals a round of applause. I would say from all of us: congratulations to all in the Friends Together Club, and thank you for your service. I hope the hon. Gentleman will get a copy of today’s Hansard for everybody that he named. We appreciate all of them.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I am sure my right hon. Friend will join me in congratulating Conservative-run Harrow Council on this year exceeding the usual number of apprentices it recruits. More than 50 young people have been given the opportunity to work across different departments, including eight in our schools. That obviously gives them the opportunity to build a career in public service. Will my right hon. Friend find Government time for a debate on apprentices in public services, so that we can congratulate the public services that are recruiting apprentices and shame those that do not?
Penny Mordaunt
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating his local authority on its achievements. We should all be proud of the fact that over the past few years, we have created 5.7 million such opportunities for young people, but also people at other stages in their life. It is a tremendous way in which people can progress, move career and gain new qualifications without getting into debt. I send my congratulations to him and to Harrow Council.
Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)
May I begin by joining the tributes of Mr Speaker and those on the Front Benches to Tommy McAvoy? He represented my constituency of Rutherglen for 23 years, and was a committed trade unionist in the community before that. He was very much Rutherglen’s man. During the by-election, I do not know how many people said to me, “You don’t need to worry; I knew Tommy well, all those years ago.” Fourteen years after he stopped being the MP, he was still remembered by so many constituents.
May I ask the Leader of the House about the subsidy scheme that provides support enabling schools to come to this place? It is always wonderful to have schools visit us, and as a former teacher of politics, I think that bringing pupils to this place to see politics in action is incredibly important. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) has already raised the issue of the subsidy. Although it has been increased for April, the support is still not enough to enable many schools to come to this place. Has there been any analysis of how many schools have been prevented from visiting because of that? Will there be a review of the categories? All of Scotland’s schools are in category C, and it is particularly difficult to bring pupils here using the current subsidy.
Penny Mordaunt
As I said, this matter has been looked at by the Finance Committee. It has gone into a lot of detail on who comes here, the barriers to people visiting, and what other options they have to access education resources that they might want. Clearly, coming to this amazing UNESCO heritage site is important to many people. I will make sure that the Chair of the Finance Committee, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. A number of House of Commons Commissioners are in the Chamber today, and they will have heard what he said. The policy has recently been changed to be more favourable, but all parties concerned keep it under review.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Rugby is providing new housing at scale, yet the number of pharmacies in our town is falling. Following closures in recent months, residents have told me about having to queue for more than an hour to get a prescription. I am aware of offers to set up new pharmacies, but they have been turned down by our health and wellbeing board, which unbelievably says that there is sufficient provision in our area. Can we have a debate about how this process is managed?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about the situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which does indeed sound serious. Local commissioners have an obligation to ensure that such services are available. Following initiatives of ours, such as Pharmacy First, that obligation is doubly important, because many of these places now have the authority to prescribe. I will make sure that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care hears his concerns. I will ask the regional managers of NHS England to look at what is going on in his community. That level of service is not acceptable for his constituents.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
A company called Claim My Tax notified my constituents Margaret and Brian Broadley that they were due a £1,200 marriage tax allowance refund from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Having seen the paperwork, my constituents believe that the company obtained their signatures fraudulently, and they notified HMRC accordingly. HMRC insisted that my constituents gave permission, and it will continue to work with the company, rather than directly with them. The Government rightly talked about clamping down on the actions of such claims companies. Why is HMRC allowed to behave like this?
Penny Mordaunt
I hope that we can swiftly resolve this situation for the hon. Gentleman. If he gives me the details of the case after this session, I will make sure that he speaks immediately to someone from HMRC who can resolve this. I am sure that he has tried to get it resolved himself, and I am here to assist him in doing so. Hopefully we will be able to sort this out for his constituents.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
One of the driving reasons why I wanted to come to the House was what I saw in the NHS. All too often, those who wanted to create change were told, “You’re too junior,” or “This is the way it has always been done.” That is why I am delighted to see the productivity plan, which £3.4 billion is being put towards. When that plan is brought forward, may we have a debate in Government time on ensuring simple things, such as cross-boundary results being shared, having computers that load quickly, and getting rid of faxes and letter scanning? All that takes 10% to 15% of a clinician’s time—time that could be better spent with patients.
Penny Mordaunt
That is a good suggestion for a debate. I hope that all Members of the House welcome the £6 billion increase in funding for the NHS announced in the Budget. Roughly half of that is going to the new improvement programmes, which we know will not only assist members of staff and clinicians working in the NHS, but improve patient outcomes. To give just one example, when a nurse asks a doctor to attend to a patient, in a large percentage of cases that is not done. However, with tracking by a handheld device, we can ensure that the visit happens—or, for example, that a cannula is changed, which improves patient outcomes. That is vital. We need to do more of that in our NHS, so that the patients that it serves get the treatment and care that they deserve.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
H100 in Methil is making good progress towards delivering the biggest green hydrogen domestic heating network that the world has ever seen. The Government promised that by March 2023, they would have announced the successful applicant, somewhere in the UK, in an even more ambitious project to provide green hydrogen heating to potentially tens of thousands of homes, but a year later, we have heard nothing. Can we have a statement to explain why the Government are dragging their feet, and jeopardising the status of Levenmouth and Scotland as world leaders on this vital green hydrogen heating technology?
Penny Mordaunt
The UK is a world leader in this area. I shall ensure that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero hears what the hon. Gentleman said, given that the next questions to the Department are not until 16 April, but we have a good track record across the UK in this area, and we will want that to continue.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I feel that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been robbed of its time in this place. Last year, the Leader of the House was kind enough to ensure that we had the full hour for oral questions on our countryside, our fishermen, our farmers and the environment, but we have slid back to 40 minutes. May I please ask that we get the full hour again to discuss those important topics?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is diligent in ensuring that he has enough time and opportunity to scrutinise that Department. I understand why that is a priority for him and the constituency that he represents. He knows that deciding how we divvy up time is a complicated Rubik’s cube problem. I was sympathetic to the case he made last time, and I will raise the matter with business managers.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Dudley hospital workers contracted by Mitie have been striking because they did not receive a lump-sum covid payment that was given to some staff directly employed by the NHS for doing the same job. Mitie wants the taxpayer to cover those payments, despite being directly responsible for its employees. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Mitie workers for their work during the pandemic, and encourage the Department of Health and Social Care to work with me to resolve this issue?
Penny Mordaunt
I join my hon. Friend in thanking those people for all the work that they did during the pandemic. It is important that we value all our health and social care staff, no matter how they are employed and in which sector they sit. The Department of Health and Social Care has decided to provide additional funding on this occasion to help deliver one-off payments to eligible organisations and staff employed by non-NHS businesses. Those organisations can apply for funding. We felt that we ought to be doing our bit. I know that there were discussions ongoing about that, but I will see to it that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is aware of the situation, sees the outstanding issues, and ensures that those people are taken care of, and that there is parity.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Leader of the House might have seen in the news this week that Reading football club intends to sell its state-of-the-art Bearwood training ground, in what I hope will not be a precursor to administration. Football fans across Berkshire and beyond are in despair at the state of some of the clubs in our beautiful game. Although the football governance Bill cannot come soon enough, will my right hon. Friend please use all the levers at her disposal to ensure that it has sufficient teeth and powers to prevent owners who are not fit and proper from taking control of clubs, and to ensure that those who slip through the net are properly held to account?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point. He is preaching to the choir, as I am a Portsmouth supporter. We must ensure that the legislation is effective. The amount of input that it has had from so many fans of the game across the country is unprecedented. The game would be nothing without its fans, and clubs are treasured community assets. We must take care of everyone in the football pyramid. When the Bill comes to the House, we will ensure that it does exactly that.
Extremism Definition and Community Engagement
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the next steps that we are taking in the Government’s strategy to counter extremism and to build greater national resilience and social cohesion.
The United Kingdom is a success story: a multi-national, multi-ethnic and multi-faith democracy, stronger because of our diversity. However, our democracy and values of inclusivity and tolerance are under challenge from extremist groups that are radicalising our young people and driving greater polarisation within and between communities to further their own ends. In order to protect our democratic values and enhance social cohesion, it is important both to reinforce what we all have in common and to be clear and precise in identifying the dangers posed by extremism.
As our new definition makes clear, extremism can lead to the radicalisation of individuals, deny people their full rights and opportunities, suppress freedom of expression, incite hatred, weaken social cohesion and, ultimately, lead to acts of terrorism. Most extremist materials and activities are not illegal and do not meet the terrorism or the national security threshold. For example, Islamist and neo-Nazi groups in Britain are operating lawfully, but they advocate and work towards the replacement of democracy with an Islamist or Nazi society.
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has been working with local authorities, civil society and faith groups, especially in those areas where social cohesion is most under strain, to de-escalate tensions and to explore the most constructive support that we can offer. From our engagement we hear widespread unease about the safety and security of community organisations, political candidates and elected officials. Councillors have been threatened with violence; council meetings have been disrupted; council officers and elected members talk of walking a tightrope, terrified of inadvertently saying the wrong thing or offending one side or the other. Many choose to remain silent and to take no action, such is the chilling element of these extremist groups on our democracy.
It is gravely concerning that the conflict in the middle east is driving further polarisation. We have seen a terrible increase in antisemitic and anti-Muslim hate crime, as well as a very significant increase in radicalisation. Troublingly, there is also evidence that some Islamists and extreme right-wing groups and others who seek to tear our society apart are working together to maximise the reach of their message and cause. That is why the work of civil society organisations such as the Community Security Trust and Tell MAMA, as well as Muslims Against Anti-Semitism, the educational charity Solutions Not Sides and the Forum for Discussion of Israel and Palestine is so important. We have provided additional funding for the CST and Tell MAMA to counter antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred, and we will do more. We will shortly establish a new fund to provide additional, direct and tangible support for grassroots organisations, building bridges and fighting division. I commend those who are doing so much to counter prejudice.
Working in civil society, it is critical that we do not unwittingly, or through ignorance, fund or otherwise support organisations or individuals who are themselves extremist. In the past, it has unfortunately been the case that extremist groups and actors have sought to present themselves as moderate voices representative of majority or mainstream opinion. The Government have had a definition of extremism since 2011. It has helped inform our Prevent counter-terrorism work and was designed to assist the Government in engagement. But in a considerable number of cases organisations and individuals with views that are clearly extreme have nevertheless benefited from state engagement, endorsement and support, and furthermore have exploited that association to further their extremist agendas.
Among the most significant was Shakeel Begg, who was labelled an Islamist extremist by a judge. Mr Begg, an NHS chaplain and regular speaker at state schools, ran Lewisham Islamic Centre and was on both the Metropolitan police’s independent advisory group in Lewisham and Lewisham’s standing advisory committee on religious education. In 2016, Mr Begg sued the BBC when it described him, accurately, as an extremist. The judge in the case, Mr Justice Haddon-Cave, conducted his own scrupulous research, identifying many occasions when Mr Begg had advocated extreme positions, including promoting and encouraging religious violence, and by telling a Muslim audience that violence in support of Islam would constitute a man’s greatest deed. Mr Justice Haddon-Cave not only dismissed Mr Begg’s claim but drew specific attention to the danger of extremists exploiting sponsorship from state institutions. He outlined the need for an updated and more precise definition of extremism to guide engagement by Government and others.
We have since seen how figures of potential extremism concern have been able to work with the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan police, co-opt charities and benefit from public funding. We know from William Shawcross’s excellent independent review of Prevent, that such engagement has inadvertently provided a platform, funding or legitimacy for groups or individuals who oppose our shared values. This apparent legitimising of their views can lead extremists of all ideologies to be emboldened and to exert greater influence. That is why today my Department is publishing an updated, more precise and rigorous definition of extremism, alongside a set of cross-Government engagement principles for use when engaging with external groups. There is also detailed guidance on what the definition does and does not capture. We are also setting up a new counter-extremism centre of excellence in my Department, as a world-leading authority on best practice, data and research.
Our plans, drawn up in close collaboration with the Home Office, will enable the Government to express more clearly than ever before which groups fall within the extremism definition, point to the evidence, and explain the funding and engagement consequences. They will also support national efforts to counter the work of extremists who promote their ideologies both online and offline. The new definition will strengthen vital frontline counter-radicalisation work. The new centre of excellence will also help us to understand the role played by state actors and state-linked organisations in extremist activity that is taking place in our country. The wider knowledge of what constitutes extremist behaviour and who is behind it, will, I hope, help all of us to identify potential threats, and to take steps to challenge and marginalise them.
Critically, the rights that we enjoy in the United Kingdom extend to everyone. Freedom of expression, freedom of religion and belief, the rule of law, democracy and equal rights—these are the cornerstones of our civilised society that Government and Parliament, on both sides of the House, strive always to uphold. To be clear, our definition will not affect gender-critical campaigners, those with conservative religious beliefs, trans activists, environmental protest groups, or those exercising their proper right to free speech. In drawing up the new definition, the Government have taken every possible precaution to strike a balance between protecting fundamental rights and safeguarding citizens. Our definition draws on the work of Dame Sara Khan, the Government’s independent reviewer of social cohesion, and Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, before his appointment to that post.
The proposed definition will hold that extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance that aims to: negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve those results. While the Government in no way intend to restrict freedom of expression, religion or belief, we cannot be in a position where, unwittingly or not, we sponsor, subsidise or support in any way organisations and individuals opposed to the freedoms that we hold dear.
Across the House, I am sure that we agree that organisations such as the British National Socialist Movement and Patriotic Alternative, who promote neo-Nazi ideology, argue for forced repatriation, a white ethno-state and the targeting of minority groups for intimidation, are precisely the type of groups about which we should be concerned and whose activities we will assess against the new definition. The activities of the extreme right wing are a growing worry. The targeting of both Muslim and Jewish communities and individuals by these groups is a profound concern requiring concerted action.
As with our definition of extremism, it is important that we be precise in our use of language when discussing Islamism. Islamism should never be confused with Islam. Islam is a great faith, a religion of peace that provides spiritual nourishment for millions, inspires countless acts of charity, and celebrates the virtues of generosity, compassion and kindness. Islamism is a totalitarian ideology that seeks to divide, calls for the establishment of an Islamic state governed by sharia law, and seeks the overthrow of liberal democratic principles. It has its roots in the thinking of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, Abul A’la al-Maududi, and the Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb. The Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood is, of course, Hamas. Organisations such as the Muslim Association of Britain, which is the British affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, and other groups such as CAGE and Mend, give rise to concern because of their Islamist orientation and views. We will be holding those and other organisations to account to assess whether they meet our definition of extremism, and will take action as appropriate.
There are, of course, further steps that we will take in the coming days and weeks to marginalise extremist groups, and to support and strengthen the communities where extremists are most active and spreading division. They will include responding to Dame Sara Khan’s forthcoming report on social cohesion and democratic resilience, and Lord Walney’s independent review of how to counter political violence and disruption. In this debate, we must never forget about the experiences of victims of extremism who are targeted by extremist groups and the severe and distressing impact that that has on their lives, and I am pleased that Dame Sara Khan will be addressing that in her forthcoming report.
As the Prime Minister has said, the time has come for us all to stand together to combat the forces of division and beat this poison. The liberties that we hold dear, and indeed the democratic principles that we are all sent here to uphold, require us to counter and challenge the extremists who seek to intimidate, to coerce and to divide. We must be clear-eyed about the threat that we face, precise about where that threat comes from, and rigorous in defending our democracy. That means upholding freedom of expression, religion and belief when it is threatened, facing down harassment and hate, supporting the communities facing the greatest challenge from extremist activity, and ensuring that the House and the country are safe, free and united. I commend this statement to the House.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I start by thanking the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for his briefing yesterday.
Hateful extremism threatens the safety of our communities and the unity of our country. Everyone, across the House, can agree that it is a serious problem which demands a serious response, so let me say from the outset that when it comes to our national security, when it comes to the threat of radicalisation and when it comes to the toxic scourge of Islamophobia, neo-Nazism, antisemitism or any other corrosive hatred, the whole House can and should work together. The way the Government do this work matters, and the language that we all use is important. I welcome the Secretary of State’s opening comment that it is our diversity, and our values, that make our country stronger.
The Secretary of State is right to raise concerns about the dangers facing our elected representatives. We must be free to represent the views of our constituents. We all have a responsibility to work to extinguish the flames of division, and never to fan them. While it may be part of the nature of our politics for passion sometimes to take centre stage, and while we may challenge and probe these plans today, if the Secretary of State wants to engage going forward, he has my word that we can do so in good faith.
I say challenge because I believe that the Secretary of State has made a mistake in the way in which this policy has been trailed in the last week. I am glad he has now come to the House to give clarification, but it is not right that we have spent the last few days poring over a possible new definition in the papers; it is not right that the Department has leaked the names of groups that may or may not be covered by this definition when, as he rightly says, this work should be based on due diligence; and it is not right that each stage of the recruitment of a new Islamophobia adviser has been mired in controversy. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he has now appointed an adviser?
On today’s announcement, we will scrutinise this new definition, and it will be crucial to see how it is applied in practice, but will the Secretary of State set out how the new centre of excellence will operate and how it will be resourced? How will this new definition work in practice? How exactly will it restrict the Government’s engagement? Will these restrictions relate only to Government engagement, or will they later be extended to other public bodies such as the police and universities?
Given this new definition, the public will rightly be alarmed by the idea that Ministers could have already met extremist groups. Can the Secretary of State shed some light on that? Renewed vigilance and diligence are welcome, particularly in the current climate, but if his own Department now needs to cut ties with extremist groups, that begs the question of why it was working with them in the first place. He said in his statement that the new definition
“will not affect gender-critical campaigners, those with conservative religious beliefs, trans activists, environmental protest groups, or those exercising their proper right to free speech.”
Can he explain which groups it will affect, and where the Government have chosen to draw the line?
This is not the first time that the Government have identified this risk or promised to act. As the Secretary of State mentioned, back at the beginning of 2011 the Conservative Home Secretary told the House:
“ If organisations do not support the values of democracy, human rights, equality before the law, participation in society…we will not work with them and we will not fund them.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 53.]
That prompts another question: why has it taken the Government 13 years to address this? The Secretary of State says that organisations that are clearly extreme have benefited from Government engagement, endorsement and support, and even suggests that those groups have exploited Government engagement. Can he understand how deeply concerning that is to hear? He must explain exactly how it has been allowed to happen.
We know there has been a huge surge in online extremism. Can the Secretary of State give assurances on how that will be dealt with? What action is he taking to work across Government to assess and confront online hate? We know that extremism does not exist in a vacuum, and we need political leadership on this, but a quality of good leadership is to empower others. The Secretary of State says that the Department has been working with faith groups, civil society and local councils, and I agree that they all have a crucial role to play in tackling extremism, but what form has that consultation taken, and will he publish its findings?
On the wider work that is now needed, will the Secretary of State set out whether it will be underpinned by a new cross-Government counter-extremism strategy, given that the last one is now nine years out of date? Will it include action to rebuild the resilience and cohesion of our communities? He mentioned new funding; how much will it be, how will it be allocated, and how will it interact with other funding streams, including those relating to multi-faith dialogue?
I also want to raise a point about hate crime, and how important it is to tackling extremism. We have seen an appalling surge in antisemitism and Islamophobia in recent months, and the previous strategy is now four years out of date. When will the Secretary of State have an updated hate crime action plan? Have Ministers abandoned plans to introduce a new hate crime strategy? Why are the anti-Muslim hatred working group and the antisemitism working group no longer meeting?
We need much stronger action to tackle the corrosive forms of hatred that devastate lives and corrode communities, but today’s statement does not go far enough. Regardless of how workable and effective the new definition and the centre for excellence may be, this announcement will not be enough.
Let me end by echoing the words of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, who have warned that, against the backdrop of growing divisions, it is for political leaders to provide “a conciliatory tone” and to
“pursue policies that bring us together, not risk driving us apart.”
I look forward to working with the Secretary of State on this.
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for the constructive, detailed and consensual approach that she is taking to what are inevitably challenging and difficult issues. I enjoyed the opportunity to talk to her and other Labour colleagues yesterday, and I look forward to working together in the future. I know it is the role of the Opposition to challenge, and I wholeheartedly welcome the constructive way in which that challenge has been issued today.
I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that the danger to elected representatives is growing, and my right hon. Friend the Security Minister has invested time, care and money to countering it. Passion, vigour and determination are all part of the meat of our politics, and nothing that we have said today should take away from our desire to see free speech exercised as energetically as possible.
The shadow Secretary of State mentioned the leaking of some information relating to our work on this issue. I deprecate that leaking, which is a fundamental challenge to the effective operation of government, and a leak inquiry has been commissioned in order to see how some of the information about today’s statement was shared. As a result of my having given the statement, however, there is an opportunity for all of us to scrutinise the detail.
The shadow Secretary of State asked how the centre of excellence will be staffed and funded. Impartial civil servants with training in this area will be supplemented in their work by studies by academics and academic bodies, and we will work with the existing expertise in the homeland security analysis and intelligence unit within the Home Office in order to ensure that all our work is rigorous. We will make sure that if a decision is made to list an organisation as extremist, we will show our working and the evidence that leads us to that conclusion, and the judgment that we have made will be there for everyone to see.
The shadow Secretary of State asked why the Government or arms of the state have unwittingly engaged with extremist organisations in the past. Although the previous definition of extremism was well intentioned and drawn up with care, it was perhaps insufficiently precise and insufficiently policed, so we thought it was appropriate to update it. This follows the Shakeel Begg case, William Shawcross’s independent review of Prevent, and other examples that were brought to the Government’s attention. Having been told by independent figures, the courts and William Shawcross that we needed to look again at our approach, the real sin would have been not to do so and to have stuck to a course that had led to mistakes in the past.
The shadow Secretary of State asked about the wider work on resilience. We will publish a more detailed action plan, which will include funding commitments to support organisations on the ground that build up a greater degree of community resilience, and I look forward to working with her and others in local government to achieve that valuable end.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I am glad to follow both Front Benchers, who have given a lead to the House.
It is interesting to consider whether it would have been right 90 years ago to identify as a threat Oswald Mosley’s approach, as well as the people who marched through the streets to intimidate others. More recently, when Kathleen Stock was at the University of Sussex, the students’ union and many others called her a dangerous extremist for writing a rather good book and having views that are now mainstream.
Filling the gap between what is not necessarily criminal but should be identified as wrong is important, and I hope the whole House can give support to today’s proposals.
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the Father of the House. There should, rightly, be a high bar on the use of criminal sanctions. We should always seek to encourage free speech, but he is quite right to draw attention to the freedom-restricting harassment that some people have engaged in. I completely endorse the point he makes about Kathleen Stock, who is a distinguished academic.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I wish Ramadan Mubarak to everybody who is marking this significant month in the Islamic calendar.
Friday is International Day to Combat Islamophobia, but Muslims are afraid to speak out, lest they be targeted for their beliefs or, indeed, labelled as extremists. The Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall, has said that their proposal
“could undermine the UK’s reputation because it would not be seen as democratic.”
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have said in a joint statement that the new definition
“risks disproportionately targeting Muslim communities, who are already experiencing rising levels of hate and abuse”,
and
“may vilify the wrong people”.
Zara Mohammed of the Muslim Council of Britain is concerned that the Government’s proposals are undemocratic, divisive and potentially illegal. The organisation is also concerned about the lack of engagement with some of the groups that the Secretary of State has talked about today. Were any of the Muslim groups that he specifically mentioned contacted, so that they knew that they would be mentioned in today’s statement?
There has been a desperately worrying increase in Islamophobia and antisemitism since 7 October, and it should concern us all that it is happening. We stand against extremism and the targeting of groups in our society, but extremism is on the rise, driven in no small part by the culture wars stoked by the Conservatives, their hangers-on and those who would call peace demonstrations hate marches. This week we have heard about the racism and misogyny expressed by someone who has funded the party of Government. Does the Secretary of State think that racism and misogyny meet his definition of extremism? Does he believe that Frank Hester’s statement about the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), in which he said that she makes him
“want to hate all black women”
and that she “should be shot”, would meet his definition of extremism? If he does, will his party return the £10 million, or will he donate it to a charity of her choosing?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making those points, and she is quite right to say that we need to be precise. As I stressed in my statement and now have the opportunity to stress again, we should not conflate the specific challenge from certain Islamist groups with the broader Muslim community. We need to be precise in order to draw that distinction, so that we are able to support organisations on the ground that seek to bring people together and to counter anti-Muslim hate and antisemitism. I thank her and her colleagues in the Scottish Government for the engagement that we undertook earlier this week through the Interministerial Standing Committee in order to share best practice about how to work with groups on the ground that are engaged in this vital counter-extremism work across the United Kingdom.
The hon. Lady refers to the comments made by a gentleman who is not a Member of this House, which were clearly racist and regrettable. Speaking as someone who was targeted by an extremist who was attempting to kill me, and who went on to murder a colleague and friend in this House, I take that sort of language incredibly seriously.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Surely the essential point here is that the Government are proposing not to ban any organisation, however extreme, from operating legally and within the law, but to identify organisations that should be barred from receiving funding or other support from the Government. They have not shared their proposals with the Intelligence and Security Committee, so any point that I make now is purely personal to me, but does the Secretary of State agree that in any democratic society people have a right to decide with which bodies they will or will not associate? That is why it is right that, since July 2021, Labour has banned no fewer than seven extreme-left organisations as incompatible with party membership, in accordance with values defined, quite properly, by its own national executive committee.
Michael Gove
I thank my right hon. Friend, who has a distinguished record in this area. He is absolutely right. There is, appropriately, a very high threshold for the proscription of organisations, which Hizb ut-Tahrir recently met. We are not seeking to ban or restrict the operation of organisations in a free society; we are simply making it clear that it would be wrong for the Government to use taxpayers’ money or public endorsement in engagement with such organisations.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said in his statement:
“Our definition draws on the work of Dame Sara Khan, the Government’s independent reviewer of social cohesion, and Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, before his appointment to that post.”.
In our report on the policing of protests, the Home Affairs Committee said:
“We find it surprising that the Government has not yet responded to the reports it commissioned from the Commission for Countering Extremism regarding hateful extremism, particularly the report ‘Operating with Impunity’ by Dame Sara Khan and Sir Mark Rowley. Sir John Saunders in his report in 2023 rightly said that the Home Office should respond as a matter of urgency.”
With this policy moving from the Home Office to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, has the Secretary of State had any conversations with the Home Office about whether there will be a full response to Dame Sara Khan’s report? How will this new definition affect the policing of protests?
Michael Gove
The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee makes some very important points. I had the opportunity to meet Dame Sara and Sir Mark to discuss our work on this new definition and, of course, I have worked very closely with the Home Secretary and, particularly, the Security Minister on framing the definition.
As the right hon. Lady will be aware, work in this space is shared between my Department and the Home Office, which is responsible for security and for supporting the police. We are responsible for funding community organisations and encouraging a greater degree of social cohesion and resilience. There will be further responses to some of the recommendations in that report, and indeed in Lord Walney’s report and Dame Sara’s additional report, which is forthcoming. I hope that, alongside the Home Secretary, I will have the opportunity to share further detail in the weeks ahead.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I thank Dame Sara Khan, Sir Mark Rowley and Sir William Shawcross for all the work they have each done in this important area, including during my time as Home Secretary. I also thank the Secretary of State.
Although the proposals are non-statutory and will act as a guide for civil servants and Ministers, can the Secretary of State explain what evidential threshold will be applied by the new centre of excellence when compiling the list of organisations and guidance? How will this guidance be applied against the existing legal definitions of racism, incitement and intimidation that guide our security services and our police in upholding the rule of law?
Michael Gove
During her time in the Home Office, my right hon. Friend initiated and took forward fantastic work to deal with extremism and intolerance. She is right that the definition does not impinge or alter the legal threshold for prosecution where people incite violence. Indeed, there are arguments for looking again at our laws to make sure that they are fit for purpose, but today’s definition is not about changing the criminal law; it is about setting a threshold. That threshold will be evidenced when we come forward with the list of organisations that we believe meet this bar, with evidence that everyone can see makes a compelling case that the ideology that spurs those organisations is extremist in nature.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State, in my view very unwisely, recently closed down the Inter Faith Network, which facilitates the kind of dialogue he praised in his statement. He closed it down on the grounds that one of its 22 trustees is connected with the Muslim Council of Britain. If an organisation unjustly finds itself on his proposed list, will it have the opportunity to appeal against its inclusion?
Michael Gove
We have not closed down the Inter Faith Network. We ceased our funding, and the Inter Faith Network draws its funding from a variety of sources. We will apply appropriate due diligence and publish evidence. If anyone believes our judgment is wrong, as in any case where it is believed that the Government have acted unreasonably, the option of judicial review is always available.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Words matter, and I note in particular the aim to
“intentionally create a permissive environment”
to deal with the harms that he rightly identifies and that we all oppose. However, there are dangers in that wording. Will he issue guidance as to what it precisely means? The word “intentionally” is clearly important. Does he accept that, with the Government generally not engaging with the organisations that he rightly identifies, we should not inhibit the work of the security services and agencies, which have to engage with elements of these organisations in order to combat extremism at an individual level?
Michael Gove
My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very important point, because obviously our intelligence and security agencies, our law enforcement actors and sometimes those working abroad to keep us safe will have to deal with and engage unsavoury individuals. The definition does not cover that activity.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Let us be clear and call this what it is. It is not a serious and genuine attempt to address a very important issue. It is a further draconian attempt to continue the Tory agenda of culture wars. It is disappointing that countless civil liberties groups, and three former Home Secretaries, have warned the Secretary of State against politicising such an important issue, but it seems it has fallen on deaf ears.
If the Secretary of State is serious about addressing these issues, I ask him to condemn the extremist, vile and dangerous language used by some of his own Back Benchers and some of the Tory donors who are bankrolling his party.
Michael Gove
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I hope he will appreciate that both I and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) are determined not to politicise this matter but to make sure we can operate consensually. Of course there will be debate, challenge and differences of opinion and emphasis in what we seek to do, but it is a shared endeavour. Indeed, we have been working with independent figures such as Lord Walney to achieve consensus.
Michael Gove
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels it necessary to make a party political point about my colleagues. I extend to him the same courtesy that I extend to every Member of this House by respecting his mandate and his voice, and not indulging in that sort of unfortunate personalisation.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has, for a very long time, been consistent and clear-eyed about the threats that we face, for which I applaud him. He has faced personal threats and responded with bravery and resilience, which we all admire.
First, I fear that the definition, though well intentioned, lands in no man’s land. It does not go far enough to tackle the real extremists, and it does not do enough to protect the non-extremists who are simply expressing contrarian views and who might find that this definition is used against them, perhaps not now but possibly in the future. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give to me and others who are concerned about that?
Secondly, does my right hon. Friend agree that this is not the totality of our anti-extremism strategy, important though it is? We now have to take forward other areas, particularly on William Shawcross’s superb recommendations with respect to the Prevent programme, on revoking the visas of visitors who do not share our values—that appears to have stalled—and on ensuring that the police vigorously and fairly implement our existing laws so that everyone can have confidence that there is not, and will never be, two-tier policing in our country.
Michael Gove
When my right hon. Friend held my current post, he took forward immensely valuable work to counter anti-Muslim hatred and antisemitism, and to support organisations fighting both. He asks whether this definition is enough on its own, and he is right that it is not, but it is a necessary step in responding to Sir William Shawcross’s independent review of Prevent, which makes it clear that the operation of Prevent is insufficiently rigorous because of the definition—that is no criticism of the professionals involved. The rigour of the definition needed to be updated, which is what we are doing.
My right hon. Friend expressed concern that this definition might be misused. The previous definition was looser, baggier and capable of many more interpretations than this much tighter definition, which is therefore much less likely to be misused. Of course the proof will be in how we set about using it and in the evidence we provide to back up any judgments we make.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
This new definition will require careful scrutiny of its compliance with human rights such as the right to freedom of expression, religion and belief. In my role as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I am delighted that we will be taking forward that scrutiny next week. On a personal level, may I ask the Secretary of State to agree that Members of this House have a duty to be careful in their use of language and not to brand groups “extreme” or “hateful” simply because they disagree with them?
I want to give an example of that, because it is an important and topical one. My friends at LGB Alliance, a well-respected LGB rights charity, have been described by some Members of this House as a “hate group” simply because they raised hitherto unfashionable but now vindicated concerns about the prescription of puberty blockers. Will the Secretary of State join me in reminding Members of this House of their responsibility not to use their positions to stifle legitimate debate that makes an important contribution to our democracy?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for her point. Again, I stress that this is about Government engagement. Although she or I might agree or disagree with an individual or group, we respect their right to free speech and free association. The points she makes about the LGB Alliance are well made. It is right that there should be debate on gender and sex questions, and I commend the Government for the steps they have taken to ban puberty blockers. Therefore, in this debate, it is right to have a degree of respect and concern for the different and heartfelt positions held by everyone. Her consistent championing of a particular position, though sometimes unpopular with others, is commendable and brave, and she represents the very best of her party.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I share, along with many other Members, some alarm at the emergence of this new definition, and I have two questions for the Secretary of State. The first is further to the point made by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms): is there really to be no appeal process in this branding of particular groups as unacceptable? I ask that not least because, as I am sure the Secretary of State will intend, putting them on a Government blacklist will have a chilling impact more widely on their place in society; from financial services to the media, who is likely to engage with them? At what stage in the process will those groups that he decides are worthy of examination be able to present evidence in their defence?
My second question is: if a Member of this House disagrees with the view of the Secretary of State or the Government, and decides to invite that group into the House or to be a member of that group, will the Government refuse to engage with the Member of Parliament?
Michael Gove
Again, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and commend him on the work he did in the Home Office during his time there. He will have known that there was an already existing definition, with which there was an obligation on Government not to engage with certain groups. He will also know that while he was there Sir William Shawcross pointed out that that definition needed to be updated and those engagement principles reinforced. We are simply continuing the work that my right hon. Friend did so diligently and effectively while at the Home Office. Organisations such as the British National Socialist Movement and Patriotic Alternative, which I mentioned, are ones that I hope no Member of this House would want to deal with. Obviously, however, each individual must look to their own conscience about the organisations with which they engage. This is purely about Government; Parliament is, quite rightly, sovereign.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Following the point made by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), I urge the Secretary of State to be cautious in all of this. Those of us who campaigned against apartheid in the 1970s were often condemned, and although the African National Congress was never banned in Britain, there were calls to ban it. Things change and history moves on; those who marched for peace in Ireland were condemned at the time, and later we had the Good Friday agreement. So I ask the Secretary of State: what is the status of this statement? Does it have legal force? Will it be an instruction to the police? Will it be an instruction to local authorities? Exactly how will it be implemented?
On pages 5 and 6 of the Secretary of State’s statement, he rightly makes the point that we have rights of religious assembly, free speech and organisation. It is important to state those, and they are all enshrined in the European convention on human rights. Will he assure us—because this is not mentioned anywhere in this document— that there is no plan by the Government or the Conservative party to withdraw from the European convention on human rights and therefore from the European Court of Human Rights? For all its failings and inefficiencies, the convention underpins human rights in a very important way.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the points he makes. His question gives me an opportunity to clarify that we will proceed with caution and that this definition governs only Government engagement and funding. Other autonomous organisations must and will make their own judgments; this is simply about what Government and their agencies do. He makes the point that people and organisations can change over time, and that is true. There are people who have been members of extremist organisations and have then changed their view and been invaluable in helping us to challenge the work of extremists: those who were formerly members of Islamist organisations such as Hizb ut-Tahrir have been valuable in countering that hate; and those people who were formerly members of neo-Nazi organisations have been invaluable in making sure that we can police their activities. Of course, it is always within the human heart to have the capacity to change and reform.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Of course, the first duty of any state is to protect its citizens and maintain national security. Many of us have different experiences of dealing with extremism. I served on the Home Affairs Committee for three years, dealing with extremism and radicalisation in that regard. As someone who comes from a Muslim faith, I get 1,000 pieces of hatred from the far right and the same from Islamist Daesh-inspired individuals. I have also had a death threat against me that is being investigated by Kent police, and other Members will have their own different experiences.
I say to the Secretary of State that this statement is being made today, after 16 months of our Government not having an independent adviser to tackle Islamophobia. This statement is also being made two weeks after the Government-funded body Tell MAMA published data showing that there had been 2,000 hate incidents or crimes against the Muslim community—we have not had a statement from the Government on that or on engagement with the Muslim community. People will be looking at today’s statement with that backdrop in mind.
I want the Secretary of State to provide me with clarification about the interpretation of the definition. Am I right to say that a Minister will make the determination as to whether something creates a “permissive environment” or is “intolerant”? I mean no disrespect to current or future Ministers, but giving Ministers that responsibility raises a real concern, because it then comes down to each Minister’s own judgment. We need to ensure that we have a thorough, independent and fair process, because we are all committed to our national security.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has endured the consequences of extremism himself and has been a very valuable voice for religious freedom for many years. He makes two important points. The first is about the need to be vigilant in dealing with anti-Muslim hatred. That is why my right hon. Friend the Security Minister announced more than £100 million of funding to better protect mosques, schools and other Muslim community centres—I commend that initiative. It is also why the Government continue to fund the excellent organisation Tell MAMA, whose founder I had the opportunity to meet again yesterday to discuss the approach that we are taking. My hon. Friend asks whether Ministers alone will make the judgment. Ministers will make that judgement, informed by impartial civil service advice and academic research.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
For a number of years, I have been meeting and working with an organisation that in 2018 published its report “Our Shared British Future: Muslims and Integration in the UK”. I supported that report because it called for “equal integration for all”, for us to “break down barriers” and work towards tackling the challenges that hinder integration, and for us to “celebrate British diversity” and the success of our model of integration. It also reported on the role of faith organisations in integration, recognising that faith can support integration efforts.
That organisation is the Muslim Council of Britain. The Secretary of State deprecated the leaks around this report, but the informal spin and briefings that have taken place have dragged the name of the Muslim Council of Britain through the mud in recent days. He has not answered the question as to what appeal process there will be, aside from judicial review. Will organisations and individuals have access to legal aid for judicial review in challenging decisions made by the Secretary of State on this?
Michael Gove
I think it was the Labour Government, when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister, that raised concerns about some of the activities and views expressed by members of the Muslim Council of Britain. Any organisation about which concerns are raised is an organisation that we will be very careful in scrutinising before taking any steps. When we do take any steps—if we take any steps —the evidence will be clearly laid out.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I absolutely support my right hon. Friend’s aims in making the statement, in terms of protecting our democracy and protecting us from violence and the kind of terrorist threats we have seen over recent weeks, but I share the concerns that many hon. Members have raised. In separating the definition of extremism from actual violence and harm, and in using terms like “fundamental rights”, which do not have a definition in law, we risk criminalising or, at the very least, chilling the speech of people who have perfectly legitimate, harmless views.
To go back to the example of gender critical feminists, a gender critical feminist might be intolerant of the right of people to change their sex on their birth certificate. They might seek to undermine that right by seeking to repeal the Gender Recognition Act 2004, for example. They would be labelled extremists under these regulations, as I understand them. As to impartial civil servants deciding these things, I am afraid I do not think that is always the case. Certainly, I have seen civil servants wearing very unimpartial lanyards on this particular issue. I seek my right hon. Friend’s reassurance that not only will such groups not be labelled extremists now, but there will be protections so they will never be labelled that way in the future.
Michael Gove
It is precisely because I share the concerns raised by my hon. Friend that we have made the definition tighter. I am sure she is aware of the existing wording of the 2011 definition, which has a far broader range of groups that could fall within its ambit. By being more narrow, precise and rigorous, we more effectively protect free speech. She referred to criminalising. Let us be clear that there is nothing in this definition that would lead to a ban. It is simply about saying which organisations Government should and should not engage with. I am sure she would agree with me that neo-Nazi organisations and Islamist organisations, of the kinds that I drew attention to, are the kinds of organisations the Government should not be engaging with. It is regrettable that in the past we have.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism, Jonathan Hall, and the Government’s independent adviser on antisemitism, Lord Mann, have both criticised what they have learned of these outline proposals for a new non-statutory definition of extremism. Jonathan Hall points out that Hizb ut-Tahrir was proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000—quite rightly—for its reactions to the attacks of 7 October, and he said the proposals mark a shift
“away from people who are doing bad things, towards people who think bad things”.
Lord Mann points to the contradiction in banning some speakers from universities, having just passed a law to enshrine freedom of speech in universities, and he talks about “the politics of division” doing nothing to help the Jewish community. Will the Secretary of State reflect on the advice of the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism and their independent adviser on antisemitism?
Michael Gove
I met them both in the preparation for the work we have done today. I think it was the case that the independent adviser on antisemitism, Lord Mann, whose work is outstanding, said on broadcasts today that he regarded this as an improvement on the existing definition. I am grateful for that support and for the hon. Gentleman’s question, which has given me the opportunity to relay that to the House.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am worried about this. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that nothing in this statement will add to the increasing culture, in what should be a free country, of the intolerance of the right to offend? I might be offended if people make extreme attacks on Christianity, but they have an absolute right to do so. People have a right to criticise religious people or particular religions. Equally, Orthodox Jews, devout evangelical Christians with a particular view of the Bible and devout traditional Muslims have an absolute right to say what they believe in a free society, even if it is very unfashionable.
Michael Gove
I could not agree more. It is the principle of Milton’s “Areopagitica” that governs my approach towards free speech: ideas should contend on the plain of argument and people should be able to discern good arguments from bad arguments.
All the statement does is to tighten the existing definition. The concerns that my right hon. Friend raises about definitions being used to marginalise speech existed with the previous definition, to an extent. Now, with this tighter definition, along with the fact that the Government will publish the reasons why they choose not to engage with a group, things will be clearer. As I say, this is purely about Government engagement and financing. I know that he, like me, would want to ensure that taxpayers’ money was stewarded wisely.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
This tweet was liked by Sir Paul Marshall:
“Civil war is coming. There has never been a country that has remained peaceful with a sizeable Islamic presence…Once the Muslims get to 15-20% of the population the current cold civil war will turn hot.”
Many other incendiary tweets were liked or retweeted by Marshall, a substantial donor to both the Tory party and the Secretary of State personally, according to a recent investigation by HOPE not hate and “The News Agents”. How does the Secretary of State square his definition of extremism with accepting money from someone like Marshall?
Michael Gove
I deprecate the personal attack on Sir Paul Marshall, who is a distinguished philanthropist and a supporter of Ark academies—state schools that have done so much, including in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, to improve the lives of disadvantaged children from a variety of minority backgrounds.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
Last evening in the House of Commons, I attended the Big Iftar celebration of the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims. One person after another said to me in private that they were fearful of an increasing mood of Islamophobia. Indeed, right hon. and hon. Friends have referred to the Tell MAMA statistics that show a 335% increase in anti-Muslim hatred since October.
I am worried about a slippery slope. I commend what the Secretary of State said about the statement just looking at community engagement, but can we be assured that this is not a slippery slope? Will it lead to a position across the criminal law, months and years ahead, where people feel that they are no longer able to speak their minds? As an example, two or three weeks ago I attended a rally in my own constituency in support of Gaza but, as we have seen in recent months, such attendance has almost been outlawed and people have been silenced. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that this statement will not be the commencement of a slippery slope? As someone who grew up in Northern Ireland, in an environment of terrorism, I know that it is easy to think that we are putting one person away, but to end up with 1,000 enemies behind them.
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, whose experience not only in Northern Ireland, but working abroad to promote peace and inclusion, is to be commended. He is quite right. The Department that I lead funds Tell MAMA, which does such important work in highlighting and recording acts of anti-Muslim hatred. There has been a dreadful increase in such acts. We want to work with organisations on the ground to counter that hatred. As I mentioned, sadly some of the organisations that have been supported in the past have been extremist and have sought to intimidate British Muslims. That is why we need to be careful about those with whom we work, in order to present a united front against anti-Muslim hatred.
George Galloway (Rochdale) (WPB)
It is quite clear that there is a shared endeavour between the two Front Benches, but as questions have continued, it is clear that there is unease on the Back Benches on both sides of the House, and for very good reason. It is obviously true that this is part of the culture war wallpaper that is being created for the general election soon to come. It is not good enough to say that it does not seek to ban or jail anyone—try getting a bank account once you have been branded by Michael Gove as an extremist.
If we were debating extremism in the Oxford Union, as once we did in the Secretary of State’s salad days on another matter, we would all be talking about what is the definition. I remind the Secretary of State that a former Speaker of this House was wearing a “Hang Nelson Mandela” T-shirt when my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I were seeking the overthrow of apartheid and being called divisive. This building is designed to show that politics is full of division, and sometimes those reviled as extremists turn out to have been right all along.
Michael Gove
I congratulate the hon. Member on his election as Member of Parliament for Rochdale. As he rightly points out, we have known each other for several decades. During that time, I have always admired his oratorical skills and the passion with which he makes his case. There is nothing in this definition that any hon. Member should fear will inhibit them in making their case. While I passionately disagree with the hon. Gentleman on so many issues, he has the same rights as every other Member of this House and deserves to be listened to with respect as he makes his case.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
By stating that a free society requires that the Muslim religion accommodates itself to the same level of scrutiny, criticism and even blasphemy that Christianity has become accustomed to, am I straying into the Secretary of State’s permissive environment? I am not an extremist, am I?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend is many, many things: learned, wise, kind, a champion of the New Forest and a distinguished former educationalist. He is not an extremist, and I shall continue to admire the rigour with which he prosecutes his case.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I share the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton- under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) that Government Departments may have been engaging with extremists and racists in the past. The Secretary of State seems to indicate that engagement, or lack of engagement, is dependent on the definition. Is it not also dependent on the common sense of Ministers? If Ministers are willing to engage with extremists and racists, surely they should not be Ministers in the first place.
Michael Gove
I absolutely take the hon. Member’s point. The key thing here is that sometimes there are organisations and individuals that seek to operate by presenting one face to one group and a different face to another. That is why we need due diligence. Mistakes have been made in the past. I think those mistakes were made in good faith and unwittingly, but as has been pointed out by Members from across this House, a number of people have expressed their concern about those past errors. That is why we need a tighter, more precise definition.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I commend the Government on what they are attempting to do to oppose and fight all forms of extremism and hatred in our country. Does the Secretary of State agree that what underpins Britain is our ancient liberties and freedoms, free speech and the rule of law, which uphold our democracy under the Crown? Does he believe, as I do, that we must defend all our British values and traditions? We must teach them in schools, and we must ensure that British values are the order of the day.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. In our schools and other institutions, we should make sure that people from every background are acquainted with our history and taught the very British habits of scepticism, questioning and sometimes raucous expressions of opposition to Governments and others. That spirit of democratic challenge is core to this country, and no one better exemplifies being able to speak out without fear or favour than my hon. Friend.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The press release attached to this statement, which refers to 7 October, seems to imply, deliberately or otherwise, that protests and other human responses to the horrors of the Hamas attacks on Israel and the bombardment of Gaza are extreme. In my diverse and shared Belfast South constituency, we are battling extremism at the moment, in the form of a rash of menacing and racist posters about foreigners and housing. It is my genuine belief that that rhetoric is being fanned by this Government—the Government of a party funded by a person who says that they hate all black women. It is worth mentioning that Northern Ireland Office Ministers met representatives of paramilitaries during their negotiations on the withdrawal agreement. This kind of politics and the departure from pluralism and tolerance are part of the reason why I and many others advocate for a new Ireland by exclusively peaceful and democratic means. That would of course undermine and change the constitution of the United Kingdom and its democracy. Can the Secretary of State confirm that people like me, who advocate for a new Ireland, are not extremists under the second part of his definition?
Michael Gove
No, of course not. The Social Democratic and Labour party has a long and proud tradition of arguing for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to become a new state, and that has an impeccable political tradition. As she rightly points out, many people wish to protest about what is happening in the middle east. We may disagree about aspects of that conflict, but I hope we all share a sincere desire to bring peace to the middle east. We all deprecate the regrettable incidents of prejudice on the streets of South Belfast.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I welcome the clear statement today. It is right that we openly debate and tackle extremism in this place. At this time of tension and sensitivity, does the Secretary of State agree that politicians have a responsibility to dial down the rhetoric, that divisions must not be exploited for political gain, and that we all must work together across the House to achieve that?
Michael Gove
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. His distinguished career of public service even before he entered this House shows a commitment to working across divides to strengthen our democracy.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Secretary of State spoke of sharing our workings about affected organisations. He did not share his workings after his abrupt decision to pull Government funding from the Inter Faith Network, causing that respected organisation to close. How does he explain the contradiction between his words and his recent actions?
Michael Gove
A letter was published outlining the reasoning behind that, and the Government are only one of a number of funders of the Inter Faith Network.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I do not want to be accused of dialling up the rhetoric, but I must say that I and millions of people in this country are utterly fed up with these protests that have been taking place in our nation’s capital. Not every person who attends these protests is an extremist, and not every person who attends these protests is a radical, but many are, and they are going unchallenged. I have Jewish friends who will not go into their own capital because they do not feel safe, and it is weekend after weekend after weekend. When is something going to happen? All the public see is impotence. It is fuelling extremism, and it is linked to this debate. If the situation does not get any better, and we continue to see hate on our streets going unchallenged, is the Government prepared to strip responsibility for policing in London from the Mayor of London, and to give a far stronger steer to the Metropolitan police, who every weekend, from what I can see, are failing to stand up for our values, and for Jewish people, so that they feel safe?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend speaks passionately about this. I know from talking to Jewish friends that some of the statements and actions that accompany these marches cause them to feel a profound sense of fear. That has been well recorded not just by the Government’s Commission for Countering Extremism, but by Members of this House, so I share his concern for the Jewish community.
I should say that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner takes his responsibilities very seriously. There have been a number of arrests alongside these marches, and individuals have been prosecuted for incitement and for hateful actions. In addition, my colleagues in the Home Office have commissioned a report from Baron Walney, John Woodcock as was, looking at how we give the police all the powers that they need. We will come forward in due course with a response to that report.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I am afraid that the statement has not assuaged the fears that so many have about what the Government are really up to here. Given recent events, on which the Secretary of State was remarkably silent in his statement, may I ask whether we should count as an extremist someone saying that an MP should be shot? Or are those who have donated £10 million to the Conservative party exempt from such definitions? Would the Tory party not be better off getting its own house in order, rather than making this clearly political intervention, which has more to do with the upcoming general election, and trying to silence the huge numbers of peaceful opponents of the Government’s Gaza policy, than it has with public safety?
Michael Gove
As I mentioned earlier, speaking as someone who was the victim of a determined effort to kill me, and because the individual who was trying to kill me went on to kill a friend and colleague from this House, I take incredibly seriously threats of violence. I have long admired the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and I have no hesitation in stating that those comments were disgusting, but the intention in bringing forward this definition today is to make sure that the Government—we are talking about only the Government—work with organisations that are committed to peace and greater social cohesion. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member will recognise that we can work together to deal with these hateful extremists, whose actions we both, I am sure, deprecate.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will understand that the people of Southend West will welcome his statement, and appreciate his commitment to tackling extremism, but they also know that the devil is not just in the detail, but in the enforcement. They have seen the antisemitic slogan “From the river to the sea” projected on to their Parliament—if such slogans are not already against the law, they certainly should be—and they have seen the police take insufficient action. On marches against the middle east war in Southend, we have seen dolls covered in white bandages, spattered with a red substance, and placards saying, “Anna Firth kills babies”. Clearly, both those things are, if not extreme, then very close to being within my right hon. Friend’s definition of extremism. Can he assure me and the House that we will ensure that the message about what is extremism and what is against the law gets through to the police, and that appropriate action is taken?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is correct to draw attention to the fact that there have been occasions recently when people motivated to make a particular point have crossed the threshold. I know that the police take those transgressions incredibly seriously, as do the Security Minister and the Home Secretary.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
Over the past week, as we have meandered towards this statement, much of the debate has been played out in the press; there have been definitions, and various organisations that could potentially be proscribed have been named. How can my constituents in Ilford South have any faith in the Secretary of State’s ability to decide who is, and who is not, an extremist? I ask because it has also been briefed that his preferred appointment as the anti-Muslim hatred adviser is Haras Rafiq, the former chief executive officer of the Quilliam Foundation, which worked with US anti-Muslim think-tanks and promoted the favourite theory of Nick Griffin, the great replacement theory—a conspiracy theory that is so debunked and extreme that it should be nowhere near the thinking of the Secretary of State. Yesterday, most damningly, Tommy Robinson, a far-right extremist—everyone in this House knows who he is—praised that appointment. How can my constituents have faith that the decisions the Secretary of State will make are not politicised?
Michael Gove
Because we will publish the evidence behind them.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I warmly welcome today’s statement, but we have to consider the fact that organisations are populated by individuals. Individuals who have hateful views may be expelled by those organisations, or may go off and form other organisations that will not be on the banned list. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said, it is individuals who seek to radicalise young people, either from abroad or in the UK. What action will the Secretary of State take to ensure that foreign nationals who seek to radicalise our young people are prevented from doing so?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, related to that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). The Home Office is vigilant about who it allows to come here, and it conducts appropriate work to ensure that visas are not granted to people who are here to sow division and hate.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
We know from the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee, under the leadership of the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), and its report on extreme right-wing terrorism that a number of people are radicalised not simply by shadowy organisations on the dark web, but at least in part by the mainstream media. How does the Secretary of State see his statement and his definition of the creation of a permissive environment—I am thinking of calling judges “Enemies of the people”—intersecting with the mainstream media?
Michael Gove
All of us have a responsibility to be vigilant about the dangers of extremism. I am grateful to many media outlets for shining a light on extremism, from the BBC to The Times. The hon. Gentleman mentions one particular newspaper headline. He may disagree with it or find it objectionable, but the most important thing to recognise is that a vigorous culture of free speech, sustained by a free and independent press, is a critical part of our democratic culture.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for responding to questions for an hour and 13 minutes.
Estimates Day
SEND Provision
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Mr Robin Walker to lead the debate.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to colleagues on the Liaison Committee and the Backbench Business Committee for supporting my application for the debate and giving it the prominent position that it has today. I thank all those who supported the application. I note that it is an unusual subject that brings together the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis), and the hon. Members for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Not all of them can be here today, but I know that each has passionately supported the case for more and better targeted investment to support children with special needs. I warmly welcome the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Gen Kitchen) to the Chamber. It is greatly to her credit that she has chosen to make her maiden speech on this subject; I look forward to hearing it.
There have been many debates on the importance of special educational needs and disabilities in the House over the past few years, so this is not new ground, and I make no apology for that. There have been Green Papers, a Command Paper, and the excellent Backbench Business debate under the auspices of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, which was so well subscribed. It is no surprise to me that today’s debate is similarly well supported across the Chamber. I do not intend to repeat all the arguments from the previous debate, in which 30 Members spoke. I hope that the Minister will take them all as read in his response.
In my casework as MP for Worcester, and in the evidence that I have seen as Chair of the Education Committee, there is a consistent trend of schools at every phase and of every variety struggling to meet the rising level of SEND, of families struggling to get the needs of their children properly met and supported, and of children with SEN too often being home educated, not as a result of genuine elective home education but as a result of their parents feeling that there is no other way in which their needs can be supported. We have heard this at the Education Committee described as “non-elective home education”.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The hon. Member has secured a really important debate. One big problem that comes across strongly in Derbyshire is the lack of capacity within the local authority to do the assessment. Many schools are supporting parents and their special needs children, but are unable to get assessment for months or even years. How big an issue does he think that local authority resources are in all this?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman is right: that is definitely part of the challenge. I will try to come back to that later in my speech. The briefing that the Local Government Association has provided for the debate is very helpful in drawing attention to that. In the previous Backbench Business debate, Members from both sides of the House highlighted the need for earlier identification of need, and all the different organisations across local authorities, health and education that need resource and support to deliver that.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)
The need for early identification is incredibly strong. There has been some progress towards it, and I congratulate the Minister for the strides that he has been able to make, but we cannot have a genuinely universal education system unless we have universal early identification of special needs, so will my hon. Friend welcome the fact that I have secured the opportunity to reintroduce my Dyslexia Screening and Teacher Training Bill, as a ten-minute rule Bill, on 23 April?
Mr Walker
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing that opportunity, and for all the progress that he has made in drawing attention to the needs of dyslexic children and identifying those needs early. He is right that we need to look at how we better support universal identification of need at an earlier stage. He will recognise that some conditions only show themselves over time, so it is important that there are the right interventions at every level to identify those needs and ensure they are properly met.
When we debate children missing school, as we often have in recent years, we often find it difficult to tell which are doing so because of unmet need. The work of the Children’s Commissioner, among many others, has highlighted that that is a major cause. When we debate rising levels of home education without the benefit of a much-needed statutory register, which the Government have now pledged to support, we find it impossible to tell how many of the rising number of cases are genuinely elective. My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) is sponsor of a Bill that seeks to address the issue, and I hope the whole House will support its Second Reading tomorrow. I welcome the fact that Opposition Front Benchers have already done so and I believe that the Government have as well.
Both those factors, as highlighted in the Education Committee’s report on persistent absence, point to the need for urgent action on SEND. The Government’s own Command Paper is also clear on that point. In fact, in preparing for this debate, I was struck by recent comments made by the Secretary of State at the Association of School and College Leaders conference:
“The massive demand, of more and more children diagnosed or even not diagnosed but have special educational needs, that’s something that I don’t think we’ve got the right system in place. If you look at special education needs, we haven’t built enough special educational needs places or schools. We have councils under pressure because families can’t get the right support that they need”—
a succinct summary of the nature of the challenge, which colleagues across the House will recognise all too well.
In that context, we need to consider the departmental estimates of the Department for Education, the £57.8 billion rising to £58.5 billion for the core schools budget, and the £82 billion rising to more than £100 billion overall in the supplementary estimate, as well as the £6.3 billion capital budget. Although it would be easy for a Government Member to point to those big numbers and trumpet what are without doubt record sums in cash terms for revenue funding, they do not tell the whole story.
The excellent House of Commons Library briefing prepared for this debate confirms both cash and real-terms growth in spending on high needs since 2015, as well as a faster trajectory of increasing need as identified by education, health and care plans. Within those numbers, it is to the credit of Ministers in this Government that the amount spent on high-needs funding has doubled in the past 10 years and has increased by more than 60% since 2019. That shows some recognition of the importance of investing in this space.
But it is also clear, as we debated on the F40—Campaign for Fairer Funding in Education—motion a few weeks ago, that revenue funding has not been sufficient to meet demand. Over the same period, the growth of EHCPs alone has more than doubled. The level of need demonstrated not only by the number rising from 240,000 nine years ago to more than 500,000 today, but by the complexity of conditions and the demand for specialist places to support highly complex pupils, has grown even faster. I am told that 180 children per day are being identified as having special educational needs.
For every child with an EHCP, as the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) pointed out, many more are awaiting assessment or have their needs already met in public or independent schools without the need for an EHCP. Nevertheless, those children also need support. I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments for the early identification of support need, but that is a vital part of the argument.
Also to the credit of Ministers is the greater recognition in recent years of the need for more capital investment in SEND places. Even in the most recent Budget, the main capital commitment for school-age education was a further £105 million for 15 SEN free schools, delivering up to 2,000 specialist places across the country. I welcome that, but I observe that the calculation that just over £100 million can deliver 15 whole new special schools seems a challenging one. That gives a cost of £52,000 per place, compared with more than £86,666 per place in the calculations that the Government made only three years ago—before the impact of three years of high inflation for building costs.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for all he does on the Education Committee. In my constituency surgeries, I, like many Members of Parliament, see parents in real pain. They want the best for their child, and they are waiting for one to two years to get a plan so that their healthcare and education needs can be met. My hon. Friend asked about the allocation of the £105 million in the Budget. Can he clarify his understanding of how the Government will allocate that across the country? I need an allocation for my constituents in Gillingham and Rainham, who urgently need it. All Members want to know whether that will be done on a fair basis.
Mr Walker
I congratulate my hon. Friend for making the case for his constituents. The question he asks is one for those on the Front Bench, and I hope the Minister can further clarify the process of allocating those resources.
At the last spending review in 2021, the Department secured £2.6 billion over the review period for a mixture of new specialist settings, expansions of existing ones and delivery of bases in mainstream schools. In total, that was designed to deliver 30,000 new school places. Will the Minister, in his reply, update the House on progress on spending that substantial capital investment? Can he update the House, too, on the total number of specialist places already delivered? Will he explain how deliverable the Government have found this programme, at a cost of about £86,666 per place, and the rationale for the Budget announcement being so much cheaper?
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his exceptional work in this area. He shares my passion for the new Malvern-based autism free school, which will benefit children across Worcestershire and more widely. Can he update the House on how he sees progress on delivering the new free school?
Mr Walker
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her intervention and for her campaigning to secure those vitally needed places in south Worcestershire, which I hope will benefit my constituents as well as hers. I want to more places delivered for autistic students in Worcestershire as swiftly as possible. That is being done through a combination of the provision that she has rightly championed and campaigned for, a new base in my constituency in a mainstream school—which the county council is commissioning—and the provision recently created for an AP, or alternate provision, school in the north of the county. There is some welcome progress there, but as I will touch on later, I do not feel that it is quite enough to meet need.
Back on that £2.6 billion, I have some concerns about the progress of that much needed capital investment. Careful examination of the supplementary estimates for the Department reveals a £300 million transfer from the capital to the revenue budget. I ask for reassurance that none of that has come out of the £2.6 billion originally targeted for investment in SEND. If any has, will the Minister tell us how much? Can he provide figures for how many places have been commissioned in each of the three categories set out in the 2021 spending review and how many more are in the pipeline?
From long experience and from my work on the Select Committee, I know that the DFE has routinely underspent its allocated capital, but at a time when the need for SEND placements is so high and we have the urgent challenge of RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—affecting many mainstream and specialist schools, I hope that the Department is protecting the precious investment that Ministers, including me and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), fought so hard to secure.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I am grateful for my hon. Friend securing this debate and for his work on the subject. In Cheadle, we are welcoming a new £70 million SEND provision being opened at the end of this year, in September; 133 places will be provided there. Teachers and headteachers I have talked to are telling me that in their establishments and schools, they want more resource-based provision, which might involve capital investment. Going along with that as well, we have the problems mentioned earlier in securing the education, health and care plan. Does my hon. Friend agree that all those issues need to be addressed if we are to get the right future for our children?
Mr Walker
Yes, is the short answer. My hon. Friend sums up some of the challenges neatly.
I come to some of the recommendations of the Select Committee before touching in a little more detail on the local picture in my part of the world. During my time as Chair and under my predecessor, now the Minister for Skills, the Education Committee has held a number of sessions on SEND and the implementation of the 2014 reforms. In 2019, before my time, the Committee concluded that the reforms of 2014 “were the right ones” in principle, but that implementation had “been badly hampered”, notably by administration and funding, which at that time it called “wholly inadequate”.
The Committee also called for a more rigorous framework for local authorities; a direct line of appeal for parents and schools to the Department for Education; powers for the local government and social care ombudsman to investigate school complaints; and development of more employment and training opportunities post 16 for people with SEND. The Government pointed to their Green Paper and towards the Command Paper that was finally published two years later in response, but only the first and last of those recommendations have been fully addressed.
More recently, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend who is now the Minister for Skills, and his predecessor, the Committee held sessions and published correspondence in which SEND funding, and delays in processing it, have repeatedly been raised. I am grateful for correspondence in which Ministers have unequivocally confirmed that there is no push from the Government to ration or limit EHCP numbers, but I note that in his letter of October last year, the Minister on the Front Bench stated that
“in-year funding delays occur due to insufficient planning from local authorities”.
Will he update the House on what steps he is taking to address that and to ensure that every local authority has the resource and support it needs to plan properly in this space?
The vast majority of local authorities have high-needs deficits, which have been growing rather than shrinking in recent years. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will talk about the valuable work that the Department supports through the safety valve and “Delivering Better Value” programmes, but the fact that those programmes are constantly growing, as is the cumulative deficit of local authorities, surely makes the case for more funding. At some stage, we have to acknowledge that producing ever more help to manage the level of deficits is not a sustainable solution, and that investment is required to clear or remove them. The high needs deficits are now compounded by the fact that the same local authorities have rapidly growing deficits in children’s social care and transport, limiting their potential to cross-subsidise.
The Government promised to introduce in their SEND and AP improvement plan a new national framework of banding and price tariffs for high needs funding, and more details were to follow later in 2023. I am not aware that that has been published, but my local specialist schools tell me that, although the total level of high needs funding has seen much-needed increases, and underlying per pupil funding has risen in real terms, the banding for specific conditions has not had an inflationary increase for over a decade. Given the rising costs of employing teaching assistants to support complex needs, surely that needs to be reviewed.
At every level of education, my Committee has made recommendations about SEND and encouraged the Department to do more to support SEND children and our families. In our childcare report, we recommended that the Government amend the early years foundation stage framework to ensure that more staff involved in a child’s care receive mandatory training in identifying and manging types of SEND. The Government rejected that proposal but stated that newly revised criteria for level 3 early years educator qualifications, alongside level 2 criteria, now include standalone criteria on SEND identification and practice. They also made welcome announcements about support for early years special educational needs co-ordinators, and partially accepted our recommendation to expand family hubs—although, to be clear, I believe that they can and should go further.
Absence rates are significantly higher for pupils with SEND. In our report on persistent absence, the Committee recommended that the Government prioritise resources for early identification of need, inclusion and assessment in mainstream schools to ensure that they can adequately support pupils with SEND. We recommended making attendance in specialist schools a key metric of success, recognising both the support that having children in such settings provides families and the developmental benefits to the child. The Committee also recommended that the Government ensure that pupils with SEND are placed in alternative provision only for a limited time and as a way of addressing issues affecting their attendance in mainstream schools. The DFE should discourage its use as a way of managing behaviour.
The Department for Education said in its response that it is working with 32 local authorities and testing approaches in schools to improving early identification of SEND-related conditions. Additionally, it is piloting early language support for every child, jointly funded by NHS England, to have speech and language professionals based in early years primary schools to spot early delays in development and take swift appropriate action. Pilots are great, but we need that support everywhere in the country.
For our recent report on Ofsted’s work with schools, we heard that lack of expertise among inspectors was seen by specialist schools as a particular problem. The report recommended that Ofsted ensure that the lead inspector always has expertise relevant to the type of school, and that a majority of members of larger teams have the relevant expertise. We recommended that factors, such as the number of students from disadvantaged groups and those with SEND, should be clearly described and visible in the final Ofsted report. We hope that that will be reiterated both to the new chief inspector, through his “Big Listen” consultation, which was launched last week, and to the Government.
Evidence to our careers inquiry suggested that pupils with SEND were not receiving adequate careers advice and guidance, and highlighted that they face additional barriers and need extra support to access the same level of careers education and opportunities as their peers. The Committee recommended that the Department set out the steps that it intends to take to ensure that all SENCOs are fully trained and working with career leaders or with a school or college.
The Committee has welcomed the increased focus on supported internships and apprenticeships targeted at SEND pupils, but as we highlighted in our post-16 qualifications report, too many SEND pupils are being held back by the focus on GCSE grade 4 for English and maths as a gateway to progression. We have also agreed in principle to look into the Government’s changes to disabled students’ allowance to ensure that the consolidation of that system does not lead to a reduction in opportunities for SEND students to progress into and sustain higher education. That matters because we know that pupils with special educational needs are a rising proportion of the school population. Their life chances matter just as much a everyone else’s, and their parents’ ability to work, support them and live a full life depends on their receiving the right support through childhood, in school and into early adulthood.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
This is not just the morally right and good thing to do for the individuals in question and their families, but it is massively good for wider society because it unlocks the potential of neurodivergent individuals, who are among the most creative and gifted people in the country. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend puts it perfectly, and I wholeheartedly agree with him.
The logic behind the Government’s welcome increase in investment in childcare, which I have strongly supported, applies just as much, if not more, when it comes to supporting children with SEND. If we get this right, there are benefits for the life chances of the individual and of the family who support them.
Mr Walker
I will not give way because I need to make progress.
I have lost count of the number of highly educated parents who have felt that they needed to give up work to support their children. An increase in the departmental estimate to support SEND children would repay itself in the future earnings of their parents and would help the Government to meet their worthy aspiration of halving the disability employment gap and ensuring that work pays for future generations.
I should acknowledge some welcome local progress. In Worcestershire, two new specialist settings for children with autism have opened in the past few years: the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), and one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). The county council is in the process of commissioning a new secondary school with a specialist autism base in Worcester. We have seen expansions in the number of pupils supported at both Regency High School and Fort Royal Community Primary School in Worcester, and we have seen improvements in the opening of new settings in alternative provision. An exciting partnership between Heart of Worcestershire College and the National Star college in Cheltenham promises better local progression opportunities for further education students with SEND. Our university prides itself on being one of the most inclusive in the country.
The demand on all our settings is rising insatiably. Fort Royal in particular has seen a huge increase in severity among the population of pupils it serves. That has led the school to seek agreement with the county council to reduce its intake so that it can ensure that pupils with highly complex needs are properly and safely supported. The principal of the school has recently written to local politicians to highlight that and the risk of local needs not being met by 2030. Will the Minister look at that correspondence and consider carefully the need for small specialist provision in Worcestershire, particularly at primary level? I have over many years made the case to move Fort Royal Community Primary School—a brilliant school on a highly constrained site—to a location where it could grow and expand.
I also want to raise the concerns of respite settings such as New Hope Worcester, which provides vital support to SEND families during the holiday. New Hope has seen a reduction in the number of places that it is commissioned to provide. Parents from that setting have raised with me their concern that more support is urgently needed for respite care, which helps to ensure that their children can engage in specialist education and avoids the far greater cost of children being taken into homes. Although that support comes from the budget of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities rather than the DFE, we need to acknowledge the importance of cross-departmental working to better support need.
The Local Government Association’s helpful briefing for this debate, which I have touched on already, majors on that issue and makes a number of constructive recommendations. It calls for a cross-Government strategy for children and young people, arguing that DLUHC should co-ordinate capacity issues impacting on children’s social care, SEND and the early years. The LGA wants councils to have the powers to lead local SEND systems, and hold health and education partners to account for their work supporting SEND children and young people.
The LGA calls on the Government to use the SEND improvement plan to recognise the vital interconnection between SEN and mental health. Children and young people with learning difficulties are over four times more likely than average to develop a mental health problem. That means that one in seven of all children and young people with mental health difficulties in the UK will also have a learning disability. The report points out that good-quality early years provision can generate sustained and significant improvements in children’s outcomes, reducing disparities in later life, but neither councils nor early years providers feel that they have sufficient funding, resources and tools to properly support children with SEND and their families.
This morning, I attended the excellent briefing by the Children’s Services Development Group on the launch of its “Hopeful Horizons” report. Among the key recommendations of that report are urgent clarity on the banding and tariffs arising from the new national standards, and speeding up the building and registration of new services. The group pointed out that independent specialist advisers have a wealth of knowledge and want to work closely with the Government to make the process a success.
It is good to see the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) in her place. I look forward to hearing her proposals for ensuring that any future Labour Government address SEND funding and provision better than they have in the past. I expect her to point to her party’s flagship policy of imposing VAT on independent schools as part of the solution for providing the resource to meet needs. However, having heard many of the uses to which Labour wants to put that theoretical money, I am at a loss to see how any of it would provide the revenue or capital needed to better support SEND children.
In fact, in our last debate on this issue, in which no Labour Back Benchers spoke, we heard from the hon. Lady’s colleague that Labour does not plan to exempt specialist settings from its tax grab—only pupils in independent settings with an EHCP. I profoundly believe that that is a policy mistake that Labour would come to regret if it ever carried it out. Many pupils with SEND are supported either by their families or by local authorities in independent provision, including many highly specialised schools, and a small proportion of those pupils currently have EHCPs.
The decision to make that, and solely that, the gateway for avoiding a 20% increase in costs would create enormous and immediate demand for EHCPs, which local authorities and health structures are already struggling to provide in a timely manner. It could result in many pupils with SEND leaving, or being taken out of, settings that are currently meeting their needs and then seeking EHCPs in order to access settings that might. I do not believe that Labour has thought this policy through, or that it has factored into its calculations that £86,000 per place for public provision.
The DFE estimates show rising spend on public education and schools and, within that, a rising level of investment in high needs. All of that is welcome, but not sufficient. In 2014, this House legislated to better support the needs of SEND children, and as the Government themselves have acknowledged, the potential of that legislation has not yet been realised. I hope Front Benchers of whatever colour will reflect on the need for future estimates to better support this vital and worthy cause.
In conclusion, I will support the departmental estimates, because they provide record levels of funding for education in general and SEND in particular, but I believe there is a strong case for increasing both capital and revenue investment in the latter.
Gen Kitchen (Wellingborough) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech on this vital topic, which came up a lot during the campaign.
It is a great honour to stand here as the new Labour MP for Wellingborough. I was two years old when the last Labour MP for Wellingborough made their maiden speech in 1997, but since then, we have had a highly visible Member of the Chamber. Although Peter Bone and I disagree on many things, he was an experienced campaigner and a lead voice in the Grassroots Out campaign.
Wellingborough is not just a constituency, but a tapestry of diverse voices, experiences and aspirations. From the streets of our market towns to the tranquil countryside that surrounds them, each corner of the constituency tells a story of resilience, ingenuity and community spirit. I pledge to honour, protect and champion this rich tapestry with every ounce of my being. Many on this side of the House will have visited the beautiful constituency of Wellingborough during the campaign, but for those who did not make it on to the campaign trail, the constituency consists of the towns of Wellingborough, Rushden, Higham Ferrers and Finedon, and the picturesque villages that surround them. We are 50 minutes from London by train, and close to the M1 and the A14, so there is no reason for Members not to visit for a cheeky weekend away to help boost our local economy and high streets.
As Wellingborough is a bellwether seat, the people of Orlingbury, Wollaston and Irchester often know the problems that the Government of the day will face before they do. The result of the campaign saw the largest swing this century, and the cleanliness of high streets, highways, policing, access to education for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and access to healthcare were crucial issues when knocking on doors from Bozeat to Wilby and the Harrowdens. It was striking how the communities of Chelveston, Newton Bromswold and Grendon had all stepped up where the public sector had been cut.
One village in particular, Great Doddington, holds a special place in my family history. The quaint village is where my great-grandfather, the Reverend Henry Hacking, served from 1935 to 1938 as the parish vicar of St Nicholas after serving as an Army chaplain in the first world war. As many will know, both sides of my family have served in the armed forces for three generations, and their commitment to public service and duty to our country was instilled in me from a young age. I endeavour to make them proud, and have dedicated my professional career to the charity sector, fundraising for projects to help those in need.
On that point, I would like to highlight a couple of charities that have done incredible work to help the community and the constituency. The “Off the Streets” knife crime campaign has trained the public on how to use bleed kits, and has designed knife amnesty bins that have been installed in Queensway. I urge Members to look at the work of that charity and encourage similar charities in their constituencies. The Victoria Centre and Daylight Centre provide housing, food banks and a sense of community to Wellingborough town centre. SERVE in Rushden has stepped in to ensure that the elderly and disabled can get to doctors’ and hospital appointments now that the bus service is lacking and urgent care is challenging. Coming from the charity sector, I am honoured to be in a position to further their causes in this House.
As part of my commitment and economic pledge to the constituents of Wellingborough, Mr Speaker, in the coming months you can expect me to bang the drum for our town centres and high streets, and encourage more tourists and Members to visit the area. For a great Saturday, you could visit Irvin’s speciality tea shop, whose tea I serve in my office, or have wine from the Wine Chateau, which is the only bricks and mortar specialist shop that sells Moldovan wine—again, in my office. You could visit Rushden & Diamonds football club to support community football; it is a great Saturday out—me and my dad have watched them score in the 97th minute. You could end your night at the award-winning Ember restaurant in Wellingborough or the new restaurant in Rushden, La Estrella.
If history is more your thing, the constituency is steeped in it, with buildings from the Jacobean, Elizabethan and Caroline eras. In fact, the Hind Hotel was the resting point for Oliver Cromwell and his army before the battle of Naseby in 1645. Higham Ferrers’ town charter is from 1251, and the town has a charming farmers’ market on Saturday and Sunday in the historic town square, opposite the English Heritage site of Chichele College. The natural landscape of the constituency is breathtaking. Based within the Nene valley—pronounced differently if you’re from from Cambridgeshire—the constituency hosts the internationally renowned Waendel Walk, which Members can participate in this May; I hope to see many of you with walking boots on. As a bonus attraction, my pugs will do a small section of it too.
Thank you again, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech in a debate on this vital topic, and basically to launch the “Visit Wellingborough” campaign. I am honoured by the opportunity, and will now give way to the estimates debate.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)
I begin by congratulating the new hon. Member for Wellingborough (Gen Kitchen) on an eloquent speech and on her “Visit Wellingborough” campaign. That campaign is just embryonic right now; I know that she was encouraging some in the House to join it a couple of months ago, but sadly, I could not do so. No doubt it will continue.
I note that before entering the House, the hon. Lady was an ardent fundraiser for many charities, including Sarcoma UK, a children’s hospice, a children’s health charity and the Salvation Army. I am delighted that she is taking such an early interest in special educational needs, a subject that is very close to my heart. I have just launched a charity, the Accessible Learning Foundation, to champion early identification of neurodivergent conditions. Maybe in the short time we will overlap in this House, she can teach me something about charity fundraising. I say “short time”, of course, because I am leaving, not just because—[Laughter.] I will leave that hanging. It was an excellent maiden speech: it was powerful, strong and clear, and did not go on nearly as long as the speech by the Chair of the Select Committee. By acting in that way, she will win many friends right across the House, and I congratulate her.
This is an important debate, because it is vital that we have stronger provision for special educational needs. I acknowledge and appreciate the work that the Minister has done on this issue and the progress that the Government have made. The Chair of the Select Committee was right to say that some of the promise of the 2014 Act that is the cornerstone of the legislative framework has been delivered on, but certainly not all of it. My particular focus is on the need for early identification. The argument is this: if we can identify special educational needs and neurodiverse conditions early, we can get the support in early, which is better value for the taxpayer as well as self-evidently better for the individuals concerned.
In particular, I want to take on and defeat the argument that identifying conditions leads to labelling, which some say makes the problem worse for an individual. That is not true—it is an antediluvian attitude that needs to be abolished from our policy approach. Having more information and data about each child is better for those children and their teachers. For instance, early identification of dyslexia by assessing the gap between a child’s phonic ability—already assessed in the early year 1 phonics test—and their oral linguistic ability is now easily doable using technology and artificial intelligence, which can automatically assess oral capability in a way that simply was not possible even a couple of years ago. Knowing about that gap can help a teacher support a dyslexic child in a way that can mitigate the challenges that dyslexia brings and give them the skills to deal with those challenges, so that they can benefit from all the rest of their education. That is not just in English—in reading and writing—but in all other subjects, which are of course built on reading and writing, especially those such as history that require significant amounts of language.
The argument that these conditions are somehow not scientifically valid and we should not identify them early has been put to me by officials in the Department, and most recently in The Times newspaper by the otherwise absolutely brilliant Matthew Parris, whom I love. He argued that he did not think attention deficit hyperactivity disorder existed, for instance. Those arguments are simply wrong, and should be destined for the dustbin of history. I urge the Minister to set out the further progress that has been made on early identification. The pilots are good and some schools are doing great work, but what we need in a universal education service is universal early identification of neurodivergent conditions, and the support that comes with that.
I welcome the fact that the Minister recently said that there is no rationing of education, health and care plans. That is important because some people worry that, because EHCPs are expensive to deliver, there is somehow an attempt to limit who gets them. The challenge, however, is that they are not fairly and evenly available. Because some parents can afford to pay for a formal diagnostics test for dyslexia, there is a social inequality in who gets access. Hence we need universal screening—not necessarily universal formal diagnosis, which is a more expensive process, but universal screening—so that we know who is more likely to be neurodivergent, and then the plans can be more properly and more fairly targeted. There are now proven, cost-effective early years interventions that we know work. They do not take up much time, and the time they do take up is more than well spent in being able to target better support. They are available online, and this needs to become a universal standard across primary schools in England.
One of the reasons why this subject is so important is what happens when things go wrong. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) that we need to support neurodivergent children because of their ability to succeed. We know, for instance, that about half of successful entrepreneurs are dyslexic. We know that there are skills that dyslexic people tend to have in more abundance than straight-line thinkers, such as creativity, and we can understand why, because if someone has had to spend their whole childhood working out how to get around the fact that they are dyslexic, that will develop those parts of the brain that enhance creativity.
However, we should not just be Panglossian; there is a darker side to this. In our society, neurodivergent individuals have for far too long been let down, and we have a school-to-prison pipeline, much of which is due to the lack of early identification. For instance, statistics for 2016-17—I would be interested to know if the Minister has an update—show that children identified with special educational needs accounted for 46.7% of all permanent exclusions, despite making up under 15% of the school population, so almost half of those who are excluded from school are identified as having special educational needs.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about school exclusions. I should not have been shocked because the statistics are all out there for us to see, but last year when I visited Feltham young offender institution, just down the road from my constituency, I was told that the vast majority of young men in that institution have special educational needs and had been excluded from school. He is powerfully making the point that, if we do not invest early, we are storing up huge social and economic costs for ourselves.
Matt Hancock
That is absolutely right, and this issue unites colleagues from across the House. The Bill I will bring forward next month has cross-party support, and I urge the hon. Member to add her name to it. It has support from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) all the way through to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and it is not often that they sign the same piece of paper. If she will add her name to it, that would create a triangle of support across this House, which I would really welcome.
As the hon. Member said—in fact, she anticipated my very next point—the Ministry of Justice reports that 42% of incarcerated individuals had experienced exclusion from school, and we know that just over half of those in the male prison population have a primary school reading age. Addressing neurodiversity, identifying it early, ensuring there is the right support, and therefore reducing illiteracy and getting in support for the behavioural consequences of neurodivergent conditions will lead to fewer people in prison. It will also make sure that those who end up in prison, having been missed by the education system, get this support, and that will help to reduce reoffending. I am glad to say that the Lord Chancellor is on this and is making progress, and the Health Secretary made a huge amount of progress when she was prisons Minister, but there is much more to do.
Here is one concrete example of a new policy that I would propose, which I put to the Minister. The Ministry of Justice is currently rolling out digital profiles of prisoners, outlining their screening data and educational enrolments that are assessed on entry to prison, and ensuring that that data follows prisoners as they move from prison to prison. It is a very good initiative that was started under the previous Lord Chancellor and is being rolled out now. However, in the school system there is no automated data flow from primary to secondary school. Often, there are assessments early in secondary school, and that is good, but if there is screening data or an assessment of individual child need, there is no automated way for such data, with the richness of the data that can now be available, to be passed through to secondary school. Essentially, each child starts from a blank canvas, and it all has to be reassessed.
We need an accurate assessment of where a child is up to at the start of secondary school, but understanding their history as well would be valuable, so I ask the Minister to look at what the MOJ has done on data transfer—in its case, normally from initial prison to the longer-stay prison—for use in the transition from primary to secondary school.
Mr Robin Walker
It strikes me that my right hon. Friend’s suggestion about passporting information from primary has much wider applications. Something I have often observed in my work on the Education Committee is that there are problems when, for instance, primary schools build up a pupil’s ability in one language and then the pupil transfers to a secondary school that teaches a completely different one. Some form of passporting of data from primary to secondary through a pupil passport, not only for special educational needs but for learning, would be extremely useful in managing such transitions.
Matt Hancock
Yes, I am absolutely certain that this approach to data is more widely applicable. My focus is on this specific area, but there is now a richness of data on individual children that simply was not available 10 years ago or even five years ago, and I think that such passporting of data would be invaluable.
I agree with everything the Chair of the Select Committee said on the question of funding, so I will not repeat it. He has been the leader of the f40 campaign for many years. Suffolk is underfunded, as is Worcestershire, so I put in my plug, but I do not need to add any more details. The Minister knows them for sure.
I will close by saying that I appreciate the engagement the Minister has shown on this subject, and I look forward to meeting him in private in the next couple of weeks to continue this discussion. However, I would urge him to support early identification not just as a matter of social justice, not just as a matter of progress for each individual child and not just to ensure that each child can reach their potential, but, since this is an estimates day debate, because we will then spend taxpayers’ money on education more wisely and we will get better educational outcomes as a result.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I would like to publicly congratulate Gen Kitchen on her fine maiden speech. Well done.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock). I agreed with an awful lot of what he said, particularly his point about early diagnosis and not being afraid to attach a label to things, because that equips parents and teachers to support a child appropriately. Even if that does not necessarily mean additional funding is needed, it is about making sure that we all have the right tools in our armoury to support a child.
I congratulate the new hon. Member for Wellingborough (Gen Kitchen) on her maiden speech, and I look forward to seeing her around—I hope for many more months and years to come.
I also congratulate the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), on securing this important debate. I was very happy to sponsor his application for it, given the desperation and exasperation felt by so many parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities up and down the country. As he said, we heard from Members from both sides of the House in January in a well-attended debate secured by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis). They told harrowing stories that they learned of from their constituency casework, and in some cases from personal family experiences. Sadly, his plea for more immediate support in the Budget fell on deaf ears, although the longer-term commitment to build a few more special schools was welcome, and I will say a little more about that later. The insufficient funding for SEND has a visceral impact on vulnerable children and their families, but it is also one of the most pressing financial issues facing local authorities around the country, many of which are on the brink of bankruptcy. I shall focus my remarks on that issue, rather than repeating points that I made in the debate in January.
Since March 2021, the Department for Education has made safety-valve agreements with the 34 local authorities with the highest dedicated schools grant deficits, and a further five are in the pipeline. The Department is working with an additional 55 local authorities through its “delivering better value in SEND” programme, so we are not far off having 100 local authorities already engaged with the DFE because they are struggling with funding for SEND. That number will continue to rise because, as has repeatedly been said in the House, the available SEND funding simply does not match the need. Ultimately, many of these programmes are sticking-plaster solutions that will not address the longer-term underlying challenge, because local authorities are already predicting and modelling significant deficits in years to come, beyond the lifespan of some of these agreements.
It is worrying that so many local authorities are already involved in these mechanisms, but more worrying still is the number of local authorities using the statutory override. Introduced in 2020, the override allows local authorities to exclude any deficits in their dedicated schools grant spending from their main revenue budgets. In effect, it allows local authority to proceed with an imbalanced budget without requiring a section 114 notice. That provision had been due to expire in March 2023 but has been extended for a further three years and will end in March 2026, yet there seems little prospect of local authorities being able to manage these deficits down in such a short space of time without a great deal more Government support.
Are we just waiting for a deluge of section 114 notices when the statutory override expires? The Select Committee on Levelling Up, Housing and Communities certainly seems to think so. In its recent “Financial distress in local authorities” report, it concluded:
“The Government’s use of the statutory override and one-off ‘safety valve’ funding are temporary measures and do not address the underlying mismatch between demand, costs, and annual Dedicated Schools Grant funding”.
It added:
“the sector faces a cliff-edge of section 114 notices.”
There is no information on what will happen when the statutory override concludes. A cynic might suggest that this Conservative Government, who are clearly on their last legs, are happy to kick this thorny issue into the long grass for the next Administration to grapple with. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer to this problem, which is already keeping many council leaders awake at night, even if he hopes that this will be somebody else’s problem.
As for those local authorities that are in safety-valve agreements, are the Government keeping their side of the bargain? I have spoken before about the lack of SEND school places and the costs that can lead to; for example, children may be placed in private equity-backed schools that charge exorbitant fees and rip off taxpayers, and there is also the additional cost of transporting SEND children outside the local area. It behoves the Government to set up new SEND schools and create new places, and although the Government have promised 15 special schools in their Budget, as we have heard, their track record on delivery is poor. As the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Worcester, pointed out, it is an open question whether the funding announced will allow the promise to be met.
We are told that we can expect these schools to open in three to four years. Frankly, I will believe it when I see it, because just last week it was reported that building work on 33 new special schools that will particularly help children with autism was seriously delayed, despite the expectation that they would be up and running by 2026. The response from the Department for Education was that it never set that target date. Councils are trying to take matters into their own hands, but the Government approved fewer than half of the 85 applications from councils to open SEND free schools in 2022.
Local authorities trying to meet the requirements of their safety-valve agreements will be significantly hindered if the new SEND places promised by the Government are not forthcoming. The day-to-day impact that the delays will have on mainstream schools must not be underestimated. I hold a termly call with all the chairs of school governing bodies in my constituency. My discussions with those governors and with local headteachers regularly feature SEND, as I am sure the Minister can imagine, and in particular the massive impact on staff, other pupils and school budgets of ensuring that children with high needs who are waiting for an EHCP or desperately searching for a special school place are adequately supported. One local school told me of teaching assistants being bitten, and quitting as a result. When that happens, it exacerbates the workforce challenges that many of our schools face. The school was concerned about how to keep other pupils safe, and was spending a large amount of money trying to support a child who clearly should not have been in a mainstream school. The mainstream school cannot claw that money back once the child finally gets an EHCP and a special school place.
These delays are exacerbated by a desperate shortage of educational psychologists and speech and language therapists. I agree with the comments about making sure that we have those people in place to support the early identification that has been talked about; these professionals are integral to the system. We must address the chronic shortage of speech and language therapists and educational psychologists if we are to provide any sort of timely assessment. Scandalously, one school in my constituency said that it had the budget that it wanted to spend on speech and language therapy, but it had to hand the money back because it could not find anyone to deliver the support, and it was a “use it or lose it at the end of the financial year” budget.
I come to the final issue that I want to raise. I heard about this just last week from a Shropshire councillor, and it strikes me as a real anomaly, and waste in the system that Ministers could easily address without spending more money. I was told that a statement of special need issued in one nation of the UK cannot be passported to another. If a child with an EHCP in England moves across the border to Wales, that EHCP is not recognised, and vice versa, and the parents have to join a waiting list and start the process again from scratch. The situation is the same in Scotland. That will also have an impact on children coming into England. They are being reassessed for EHCPs, as the statements they received in Scotland or Wales are not recognised. At a time when resources are being stretched to breaking point, this lack of passporting is surely nonsense. The help and support that a child requires in one nation of the UK is surely the same in the next. I hope the Minister will take this issue away and seek to resolve it. As always seems to be the case with SEND, it is the children and their families who suffer the most. They wait forever to get the help and support that they need, and families often have to fight hard for their child’s rights.
I am afraid that the Government are letting down children with special educational needs and disability. I hope that even if Ministers choose to ignore those on the Opposition Benches, they will listen to Back Benchers from their party, given that so many Conservative Members chose to sign a letter to the Chancellor asking for more SEND funding. We all know the statistics, and know that there has been a huge increase in the number of children with special educational needs. I recognise that presents enormous challenges for national and local government, but although those statistics are important, we must never forget that behind every statistic is a child who is directly affected—a child who, like every other, deserves the very best start in life, because every child, no matter their background or needs, can achieve great things.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate. First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Gen Kitchen). It is always good to make a maiden speech about special educational needs; I did so as well, and SEND is a critically important issue. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who gave an incredibly long speech, but it was not unenjoyable. I am dyspraxic and dyslexic, and my attention is not great, so I often get bored easily, but the content was really good. He covered virtually everything there is to say in an incredibly comprehensive way. In fact, the Chairman of the Education Committee covered points that I was looking to make that I thought would be innovative, because he is so on the ball. I was on the Committee for a couple of years, and it is a shame that I never served under him. I left before he became Chairman, and I supported him in becoming Chairman. I learned a lot today about the work he has been doing. It makes me happy to see him giving so much priority to special educational needs, which he has such knowledge of and is so well versed in. That is good news and great to hear.
I have supported my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) in his work on early diagnosis. I have told this story so many times, and I am sorry if I am a bit like a broken record, but when I was 12, I had the reading and writing age of an eight-year-old. I could not do my shoelaces until I was 14. Frankly, it was only when I was diagnosed with dyslexia and dyspraxia that things started to change in a positive way for me, so diagnosis makes a huge difference. Some people say that sometimes it can go a bit far, or that sometimes there is a bit of an obsession with people feeling like they need to be labelled. That might be an issue, perhaps in a minority of cases, but in the vast majority of cases, people need and deserve to know what they have got if they are neurodivergent, because then other people can better understand them, and they can better understand themselves. Things that may have been real challenges can, over time, in the course of their life, become assets.
Certainly if somebody turned up today and said, “Tom, I can wave this magic wand and you will no longer have dyspraxia and dyslexia,” I would say, “Don’t wave it, because I want to have dyslexia and dyspraxia.” It presents me with a number of challenges. Some people try to say that I use it as an excuse when I should be a bit more on top of things. Two weeks ago, I left my phone in the back of a cab and lost it. Last night, I left my rucksack in the back of somebody’s car. I have only just got it back; that is why there has been lots of activity here, and messages being passed. I will not blame my forgetfulness on my dyspraxia, but it might have something to do with it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis)—I think that is right; I have not had a phone to check his constituency online. I had to get advice from colleagues about the name of his constituency. [Interruption.] He is here! You have just missed my excuse for not knowing it. [Interruption.] I will speak through the Chair from now on, sorry. I was pleased to sign his letter, because I know there are significant funding issues. I sat and watched the Budget, and I welcome the additional funding, but do I honestly feel that it was the game-changing moment we need on SEND funding? The answer is no.
Pretty much everyone sees special educational needs as being a very important issue, but it is not that. It is a critical issue. It is one of the most important issues, and it links in with so many other things. We need to see the big picture of how getting SEND right relates to tackling crime, how it links to entrepreneurialism, and how it helps us to deal with providing mental health services. These connections and links must be seen if we are to truly understand how important SEND is. It cannot be seen in isolation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk knows that in Suffolk, we sadly have had a failing SEND system. I have got to a stage, particularly over the past year, where 50% to 60% of my surgery appointments are with parents fighting to get the support that their children need. More than 50% of my surgery appointments are about SEND, and probably about 20% are about mental health. For some of those individuals, or individuals whose loved ones are struggling, often crippled by mental health problems, that is not disconnected from the fact that they have not got the support they need, because they are neurodivergent.
Earlier this week, I met the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, whose mental health services have been in special measures for a long time. We heard some tragic stories from campaigners whose loved ones are no longer with us because they were failed. I remember hearing from one lady in particular. She was not a constituent, but she explained to me how her son, who is no longer with us, had dyspraxia, dyslexia and autism, and the profound impact of not getting the support. When you are not understood, or you feel like you are not understood—sometimes not even understanding yourself fully, or the world around you—that can breed deep upset and anguish. The two things are linked.
Since 2019, we have had two new special schools in Ipswich: the Sir Bobby Robson School and the Woodbridge Road Academy. Each provides up to around 50 places. I remember speaking to the head teacher of the Sir Bobby Robson School, and already it has taken a few more pupils than it planned. There just are not enough places, even with those two new special schools. It is great for those who get in—it has been transformative and turned some of their lives around—but for every young person who gets a place, there are a number who cannot.
Part of SEND needs to be about the mainstream. EHCPs are not appropriate for everyone, so we have to get that support in the mainstream, too. We need more SEND specialists, but we also need to have general teachers having a much higher knowledge of all different types of neurodiversity. That is one thing I want to probe with the Minister at some point, because the SEND review made a commitment to a higher amount of initial teacher training. When I visit schools in my constituency, I make a point of trying to find newly qualified teachers, and I always ask them, “How much of your teacher training was about SEND?”, and the consensus is that hardly any of it is. I need to see evidence that since that commitment from the Government, things are changing in practice. For existing teachers—those who have perhaps been teachers for many decades—we must put in place resources to ensure they get the knowledge they need, because there is not a teacher I have met who is not passionate about wanting to do more to support SEND; they just need the knowledge and support to get to that place.
When I was on the Education Committee, one link we discussed was 40% or 50% of those in prison being neurodivergent to some extent. They feel like the system has failed them. They feel alienated from the system, and then they turn against it, and to a certain extent that is understandable. One good thing that was done was by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) when he was a Justice Minister—he is now an Education Minister—and he committed to putting a neurodiversity manager in each prison. Before then, there were only enough neurodiversity managers to cover four prisons. That was a good change.
Ultimately, we have got to get to that game-changing moment on funding. There are many things that Suffolk County Council could and should have done better on SEND, but I have sympathy that in Suffolk we are particularly badly funded. We have met the Minister about that, and we understand that that gap is apparently narrowing, but how is it defensible for me to have to explain to parents in my constituency why their children who are neurodivergent are worth less than children who are neurodivergent not just in London—we have become used to that kind of disparity—but in Norfolk and Essex? It is extraordinary, and I cannot defend that. I do not want people in those areas who are neurodivergent to get any less investment—I want them to get all the investment in the world—but I want young people in Ipswich and Suffolk who are neurodivergent to get that support as well.
Why does this matter? I raised this in an intervention earlier. Because this is a debate about the Budget, I will not just make the argument about why investing in SEND is morally the right thing to do. Even taking the bean-counter’s approach—the Treasury view—that game-changing moment in funding for SEND is good for the taxpayer, because it unleashes the talent and ability of so many people who think differently. I am in the process of setting up the all-party parliamentary group for neurodiversity in defence and national security because the soldier-first principle is difficult for many neurodiverse people who think differently, but we really need them when it comes to cyber.
This might surprise people, but I briefly flirted with joining the Royal Navy as an officer. I went to the open day where six of us got together and it was like, “Here’s a barrel. You’ve got to tie loads of knots and get it over these imaginary shark-infested waters to the island.” At that time—I think I was probably 25—I felt like I was 11 or 12 again. I felt thick again. I felt that people were looking at me like I was stupid.
We have got to do this. I served on the Education Committee with the Minister, who I know is in this place because of his passion for education, and I know that he gets SEND. I want to help him to make the case for why investing in SEND is of monumental importance and game-changing.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
It is an enormous pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) and his typically powerful and forthright speech. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) for securing the debate and, of course, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Gen Kitchen) for her maiden speech. A massive “Well done” to her— it is not an easy thing to do.
I have been a pretty robust champion for SEND for some time and have spoken on it at length in the House, so I do not want to detain hon. Members for too long, but there are some important points that I wish to raise, particularly with the Minister. The backdrop for SEND across the UK is getting ever better. In March last year, the Government published their SEND and alternative provision improvement plan. Why was that important? Because it commits to a huge increase in funding for education across the UK, and for SEND in particular, with investment increasing by more than 60% from 2019-20 to more than £10.5 billion a year by 2024-25. That is a huge increase in money, and we know beyond doubt that this is the highest funding ever for education in the UK.
I was also pleased that, as part of that plan, there is a new leadership-level SENCO NVQ, which is an important professional qualification. We have also got expanded training for staff ranging from up to 5,000 early years educational needs co-ordinators to 400 educational psychologists. Excitingly, in Bracknell Forest, a proposal is being mooted in conjunction with Bracknell and Wokingham College for a pilot to be run for recruiting and training additional teaching assistants, and particularly those who may be focused on special educational needs.
As the Minister knows, last year’s review identified three key challenges. First, navigating the SEND system and alternative provision is not a positive experience for families. Indeed, the EHCP process is too long, too convoluted and too difficult—it requires a degree to fill it out and submit it. Secondly, outcomes for children and young people with SEND are consistently worse than their peers’ across every measure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich just mentioned. Thirdly, despite the continuing and unprecedented investment, the system is not financially sustainable and insufficient places are available for those needing specialist provision.
What do we need to do? Given that I try to focus nationally as well as locally, I think that first we need to better operationalise the process. We know that the money is available and the policy is in place, but it is not being translated right now to improvements locally. I am working locally with Bracknell Forest Council to do that. Additional staff are being recruited and response times are improving for those who contact the Department, but these improvements need to happen much more broadly across the DFE’s area.
While the details remain confidential—that is a safety valve—I am supporting Bracknell Forest Council in its endeavours and am meeting here in Westminster with Ministers to ensure the best possible deal for councillors and officials at the council. I am grateful to the Government for their ongoing co-operation and investment, which is pivotal. However, to better operationalise the provision, we need the right settings for all our children, and sufficient places. Even with the increased funding, we need to build additional schools—and that is now, not in five years’ time.
Last year, I was pleased to play my part in securing funding for the new SEND school in Crowthorne in my constituency, which was one of the 60 new schools announced last year. Bracknell Forest Council assures me that it is ready right now to scope and build the school, so can we please have the money right now, not in five years?
Why stop there? We need to be ambitious nationally and locally. We could also invest locally in a third school. An obvious site in Bracknell is the Warfield site, which I have raised with the council before. I encourage the council in Bracknell to be more ambitious and go for it. Let us not just go for a second SEND school; let us go for a third as well. We need to do the same thing across the UK: identify settings where schools can be built and make the money available now, because these settings are non-discretionary.
Before I finish, I will raise two points. First, I have a particular issue with Labour’s policy on VAT for private schools. Aside from the huge impact on parents who choose—it is about choice—to educate their kids privately for good reason, that policy would have an adverse effect on service families and those with children with special needs. We must be careful what we wish for. Lastly, while I absolutely welcome the huge progress being made on SEND right across the UK, it does need operationalising both locally and nationally. It is about results and outcomes, not policy and money. I urge the Minister please to wave his magic wand on this one.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I thank the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), for securing this important debate and commend him for the work he does as the Select Committee’s Chair. I also pay tribute to those who work with and support children with special educational needs and disabilities. Across the country, teachers, teaching assistants, support staff, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, mental health professionals and many more work tirelessly every day to ensure that children with SEND have the best possible education.
I am grateful to hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, but I must pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Gen Kitchen). It really is to her credit that she has chosen this debate to make her maiden speech and to be that powerful voice for some of the most vulnerable children and most challenged families in her community. She is clearly a powerful advocate for her communities. If they vote her back in at the general election, they will also hopefully have a Labour Government with whom she can work to truly deliver on her “visit Wellingborough” campaign.
Since the passage of the Children and Families Act 2014, the number of requests for EHC plans has risen year on year, doubling between 2016 and 2022. There was a further 7% rise in 2022 when 66,706 new plans were issued. Almost 400,000 school pupils are now supported through an EHC plan, while a further 1.2 million children are receiving support without a plan. However, it is clear from today’s debate that the support system for children with SEND is failing too many children and their families. Parents and carers are being forced into expensive and lengthy battles to access the support they need throughout their children’s time in school. In 2022, more than half of EHC plans were issued after the 20-week target.
Increasingly, families are turning to the tribunal process—with a 24% increase in cases last year—to secure a plan or appeal the detail of their child’s plan. An overwhelming 98% of cases were won by parents and carers last year. That process is not only draining for families but expensive for the taxpayer. Research by the Disabled Children’s Partnership found that lost cases cost councils and courts £60 million in 2021-22. We must not forget the families who do not even make it to the tribunal, and whose children’s needs are left unmet. These unacceptable delays are heartbreaking for families, who face years of stress and anxiety while their child is unable to access the education to which they are entitled.
More than a third of children with SEND were persistently absent from school in the autumn and spring terms last year. Although some of that absence is related to the need for medical appointments, much is due to the lack of tailored provision for a child’s needs. Children with SEND have one of the largest attainment gaps compared with their peers. A child with an EHCP is on average 28 months behind their peers at the end of primary school. The gap only grows throughout school, to a staggering 3.5 years—40 months—by the time they leave. We only get one childhood, and delayed support will embed lifelong inequalities and create barriers to the opportunities that children can pursue later in life.
The crisis in SEND support is having a devastating impact on local authority finances, as hon. Members have touched on. Increasing numbers of councils are issuing section 114 notices, effectively declaring bankruptcy, with many citing the impact of increasing SEND and home-to-school transport costs as reasons. No council takes this lightly, and councillors and officers across the country working really hard to balance the books. I am sure that the Minister may want to blame specific councils for the issues, but the sheer number of local authorities on the brink—with administrations of all political parties—cannot be dismissed. Reforming the SEND system is vital not only for children and families but to ensure that the wider local government services across the country are sustainable. Issuing a section 114 notice has grave implications for the delivery of all local government services, and it is often children who suffer most from the resulting cuts.
The Government’s SEND and alternative provision review should have been the opportunity to set out an ambitious plan for reform to ensure the best outcomes for children with SEND, better relationships with families, and a sustainable system for schools and local authorities. Yet after a four-year wait, the plan was met with widespread disappointment with its limited scope. Many measures will not come into effect until 2025—six years after the review was announced. In that time, 300,000 children with SEND will have left school.
The funding for 15 new special schools in last week’s Budget is welcome, but the schools will provide additional places for just 2,000 children and there is no clear timeline for when they will open to students. I hope that the Minister will update the House on the other 33 new special schools announced alongside the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan. More than a year on from the publication of the plan, the Department has yet to publish the details of approved academy trusts, and that is delaying the start of construction. When does the Minister expect those schools to open for students?
It is also disappointing that the Budget had little to say more widely on support for children with SEND, the majority of whom will continue to be educated in the mainstream sector. The Opposition are committed to breaking down the barriers faced by children with SEND. We believe in high and rising standards for every child. We know that there are children with additional needs in every classroom in every school but, as has been highlighted by Members on the Government Benches, the Government do not equip every teacher with the knowledge and skills they need to teach them.
Labour would look at every aspect of teacher training—undergraduate curriculum, early career framework and career change routes—and we will introduce an entitlement to annual continuing professional development, which we would expect to be used in many instances to boost SEND expertise. As part of Labour’s planned reforms to Ofsted inspection, moving away from the use of single-word judgments will ensure that schools are inspected on their inclusivity and that parents of children with SEND have access to clear information about their child’s school.
Children increasingly start school without the foundational language and communication skills that they need to take part in their education. We are committed to improving speech and language support, and will equip every school with funding to deliver evidence-based early language interventions, such as Nuffield early language intervention. More than 280,000 children received SEND support last year for their social, emotional and mental health, while many children with mental ill health were out of school entirely. The need for mental health support has soared in recent years. Alongside urgent action to address the unacceptably high waiting times for CAMHS support, we will embed professional mental health support in every school and deliver open access youth mental health hubs in every community.
We will build a modern early education and childcare system that works for the families of disabled children. The early identification of needs is vital to provide the intervention in the most important years of a child’s development. Last year, Coram found that just 18% of local authorities had sufficient places for disabled children. Will the Minister confirm that there will be sufficient places for disabled children ahead of the expansion of entitlements in April?
Children and families deserve much better than Government sticking plaster solutions. We will work with parents, carers, schools and local authorities to rebuild the support that children with SEND rely on, and deliver the change needed to ensure that every child can thrive in school. For 14 years, the Government have failed children and families. As we have always done in government, Labour will put children first again.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) for opening this important debate. I know how important it is to him that our investment in education gives children and young people the very best start in life, and his work on these issues both as Chair of the Education Committee and as an excellent former Schools Minister is well recognised across the House. I, too, pay tribute to all the staff and parents doing all they can to support children with special educational needs.
Before I turn to the substance of the debate, may I say what an excellent maiden speech the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Gen Kitchen) gave? It is nice to see someone else from the charity sector join the House. Her speech was a great advert for visiting Wellingborough, and specifically her office, where she seems to keep all of its best products. She said that she would like to make her family proud, but I have no doubt that she has already done that and will continue to do so a great deal more in the coming years.
This Government are making record investment in education, with total schools revenue funding reaching over £60.7 billion this coming year. That is the highest level in real terms per pupil in history. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) said—a great champion for children with special educational needs—within the total funding amount, high needs funding is increasing to more than £10.5 billion in the coming financial year, which is an increase of over 60% compared with 2019-20.
The Department is also making a transformational investment in capital funding. We have published over £1.5 billion of high needs provision capital allocations for the 2022-23 and 2023-24 financial years to support local authorities to deliver new places and improve existing provision for children and young people with SEND or who require alternative provision.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. I am grateful that there will be two special schools in Norfolk, including one in west Norfolk, but at the moment Norfolk County Council spends £40 million a year moving children with special needs to special schools rather than on their education itself. Will he look at the urgent funding need for counties like Norfolk that face those very high costs?
David Johnston
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The amount being spent on transport rather than provision is too high. The solution is both to create more provision and to meet children’s needs in mainstream schools at an early enough stage wherever possible, though that is not always possible.
The investment is on top of our ongoing delivery of new special and alternative provision for free schools. Currently, 108 special free schools are open, with a further 77 approved to open in future. Last week, we announced funding for an additional wave of 15 special free schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester asked some questions about that investment. I can confirm that it is intended to provide 30,000 additional specialist places and that we remain on course to deliver that. I can also confirm that we will still be spending £2.6 billion in this area.
Despite our investment in education funding, it is right to acknowledge that the SEND and alternative provision system continues to face challenges. The SEND and alternative provision improvement plan, which we published in March 2023, seeks to move us to a national system where every child gets the right support in the right place at the right time. We have already begun the process of testing our reforms. In September last year, we launched the SEND and AP change programme, which is delivering some of the things we talked about in the plan, including standardising and digitising the EHCP process, testing advisory tailored lists, and strengthening mediation.
On financial pressures, as has been touched on, the Department for Education has two main programmes—the safety valve programme and the delivering better value programme—to support and stabilise local authority expenditure. The programmes are designed to improve SEND services by helping local authorities to make the very best use of their resources. The local authorities with the highest percentage deficits are invited to join the safety valve programme, and there are now 34 local authorities with safety valve agreements. By March 2025, the Department will have allocated nearly £900 million through the programme to help local authorities to eliminate their historic deficits while continuing to deliver high-quality provision.
Local authorities with substantial but less severe deficits have been invited to join the delivering better value programme—an £85 million programme launched in 2022 that helps selected authorities to structure and deliver their SEND services so young people get the support they need at the right time. The authorities work out the causes of their challenges and develop action plans. They are given £1 million to support the implementation of the plan. We have published some of the learnings and insights from the programme so far, and will continue to find and share examples of good practice in local areas. That is, in part, to address the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, the Chair of the Education Committee, about helping local authorities to plan appropriately.
Turning to other areas of funding to support children with special educational needs, we are investing £21 million to train 400 more educational psychologists by September 2024. We are investing £18 million between 2022 and 2025 to double the capacity of our supported internships programme. We have a new programme called PINS— partnerships for inclusion of neurodiversity—which is a £13 million investment that will deploy specialists from both health and education workforces to train more than 1,600 mainstream primary schools to better meet the needs of children with autism and other neurodiverse needs. There is plenty more I can say, but I want to address some of the questions raised.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) said, we know that effective early intervention can reduce the impact that a special educational need or disability may have. I commend him on his continued campaigning in that area. On childcare, we are working with every local authority to ensure they have the places available for all children, as part of our childcare roll-out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester asked me to review the correspondence relating to the location of Fort Royal. I give him that commitment. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk asked me to look at what the Ministry of Justice has done on passporting information; I will do that. On exclusions, we do not recognise the figures he quoted, but the proportion of children with special educational needs within the exclusion figures has been falling—although it is still too high.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) asked about EHCP passporting between home nations. We would expect English local authorities to accept the evidence they have been given, but I will discuss that further with the team. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) has been a consistent champion for children with special educational needs since we arrived here and served together on the Education Committee. We recently reviewed the frameworks for teacher training and there is now significantly more content on supporting children with special educational needs, but I am very happy to have a further discussion with him separately.
David Johnston
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friends on that point.
There is then the question of what the Labour party would do differently. I did not hear anything that the Labour party would do differently. The only thing we know that it would do differently is to charge families with a child at a special school having their special needs met an additional 20% on the cost of that place. It can often be a huge struggle for families to meet the cost of a place in the first place, yet Labour will add 20% to that on the spurious grounds that otherwise—and I quote—“any school could claim it’s a special school.” That seems to me a particularly poor way of making education policy, not that there is much of it from the Labour party. I wonder how many Labour MPs, when they sit with constituents in their surgeries, tell those parents that they will hike their fees by 20%. I suspect not many, but every parent in the country deserves to know that.
James Sunderland
Does the Minister agree that this is ultimately about choice? It should be about parents having a choice about where they send their children to school, without being fiscally penalised for doing so. Does he also agree that imposing VAT on school fees will massively overload the state school system, because of the number of parents who may not be able to afford to send their kids to private school and who will therefore send them to state school? Does he agree that that policy is complete nonsense?
David Johnston
My hon. Friend makes some important points. The honest truth is that I just do not think the Labour party thought it through. I think they thought it was ideology that would please a particular wing of the party, but they did not think through the fact that it would hammer families with a child in a special school, trying to get their needs met, with an additional 20%. We will see what those families think about that policy.
Munira Wilson
I thank the Minister for giving way, because I actually support quite a lot of what he is saying on this issue. Just in the last couple of weeks, I have come across two or three families that have children with lower levels of additional needs that do not warrant an EHCP who have gone into state mainstream schools and really struggled. Those families told me that they scrimped and saved to get their child better support in a mainstream, but smaller and more nurturing, private school. In one case, a mother had inherited a little bit of money from a parent that she was then able to invest. She said to me that so many children will not have that opportunity. We should not penalise parents who want to make that choice to support their children with special needs. That is why the Liberal Democrats will also oppose putting VAT on private school fees.
David Johnston
It is not often I say this, but I entirely agree with the hon. Lady, and I hope we can work together. The Labour party believes in the myth that everyone who puts their children into these schools is wealthy and can afford the 20% increase, but, as the hon. Lady says, often people are just trying to get the right support for their children. Whether they can secure an EHCP is not within their control—all sorts of factors are involved—and it is completely unacceptable to hammer those families with another 20% on the cost of trying to meet their children’s needs.
Catherine McKinnell
At the risk of focusing on an issue that is a distraction, let me emphasise that we need to invest in special educational needs provision in mainstream schools, for all the reasons that have been advanced today, including in the necessary teacher training. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has concluded that this policy would bring in £1.3 billion to provide the 93% of children in the state sector who are currently being failed by the Government with the support that they need.
David Johnston
I agree that it is a distraction. This policy is a distraction from Labour’s having no plan for any area of education—schools, apprenticeships, universities or childcare. It is a distraction, and Labour has not thought through the consequences of it.
Our investment in special educational needs is a key part of the Government’s mission to set all children and young people up for success. I am proud that the Government are providing record levels of investment, and I look forward to continuing to work with Members as we strive to make the special educational needs system the very best that it can be. I commend this estimate to the House.
Mr Robin Walker
We have had an excellent debate. We have heard from Members in all parts of the House about the importance of continuing to increase investment in special educational needs across both capital and revenue.
I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Gen Kitchen) on a fantastic maiden speech. I was very impressed to hear about her ancestor who was a chaplain in the great war. We had a famous one in Worcester, Woodbine Willie, who went on to become a great Christian socialist. I am sure that the hon. Lady will make a big contribution on education issues, and I invite her to join us on the Education Committee, where I hope she will be able to contribute further.
We have heard brilliant speeches from Members on both sides of the House, and although I do not have enough time to talk about all of them, I congratulate them on the case that they have made for their constituents. I recognise that the Minister has done some very important work and that and he takes the issue seriously. I say to him, “Keep it up, and help us to help you make the case to the Treasury to ensure that these estimates continue to increase.”
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).
Home Office
Asylum and Migration
17:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 36 / Noes: 220 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 218 / Noes: 35 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I must announce that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Alison Thewliss. I will call Alison Thewliss during the debate to move the amendment.
I now call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Let me start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate.
I think we can all agree that it is an important and vital job for Parliament to scrutinise Government spending in general, and in this particular case the Home Office budget for the purposes of asylum and migration—an issue that I know every Member of the House cares about, and one that the public are rightly concerned about as well. Over the past five years, the Home Office’s asylum support, resettlement and accommodation budget has increased by 733%, which represents a quarter of the Department’s total expenditure.
It is, of course, the Home Office’s responsibility to enable scrutiny to take place with the timely provision of clear and transparent information, but the Home Affairs Committee has been repeatedly hamstrung by its refusal to disclose key details of its spending plans and commitments. We have had to ask for information repeatedly, and on several occasions we have worked with the Public Accounts Committee to obtain financial details which I believe should have been readily available to us.
As the House will know, the terms of reference for the Home Affairs Committee are to examine
“the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies.”
We do that, of course, on behalf of the House of Commons as a whole. Ministers should not need to be reminded that parliamentary scrutiny is not a disposable luxury. The Home Office says that it welcomes scrutiny, but unfortunately we have not found that to be the reality. I would argue that scrutiny is a basic necessity to ensure that public money is spent well, appropriately and wisely, but time and again our demands for financial transparency have been rebuffed by the Department, keeping Parliament and therefore the public in the dark about how it is spending billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. Members of the House have therefore not been able to ask crucial questions about spending plans until long after the money has left the Government coffers. Today’s debate will shine a light on the position of the Home Office, and highlight the urgent need for Ministers to change their approach to being scrutinised.
I will set out the current position of the Home Office. It has requested £5.9 billion in additional funding through the supplementary estimates—£4 billion for asylum, £1.2 billion for the implementation of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the 10-point plan, and £0.5 billion for the Afghan resettlement schemes. I turn first to the Home Office’s spending on the asylum system. In publishing and setting out its plans on asylum for the year, the Department has not disclosed its spending plans and commitments in a timely manner, preventing full and proper parliamentary scrutiny. What seems to have happened is that the Home Office, in agreement with the Treasury, completely omitted a significant proportion of expected asylum expenditure from its main estimates. This means that Parliament will not get to scrutinise the Department’s spending plans until after the money has been spent.
The Department is now seeking retrospective approval at the supplementary estimates stage, which goes against the principles of the estimates approval process. Given all the sophisticated modelling that it has at its disposal, I question why the Home Office was not in a position to make available at least a notional figure to put into its budget, which would have needed to increase if necessary. It is wrong that nothing was put in the budget at the start. On 1 February this year, the Home Secretary requested an emergency drawdown of £2.6 billion from the reserves, because the Department had run out of money before the supplementary estimates had been approved.
Further, the level of detail provided on asylum spending in the supplementary estimates is inadequate. A much more detailed breakdown of the asylum budget is required to fully understand the cost drivers and to hold the Department to account for the decisions it is taking. Sadly, that is not what we have been given. Expenditure on asylum has increased rapidly over the past two years. We know that levels of migration have increased due to the number of small boat crossings, the war in Ukraine and the Afghan resettlement schemes, and the departmental settlement in the 2021 spending review was insufficient to cope with the growing pressures. As such, the Department has made large claims on the reserves, as well as extending its use of the official development assistance budget.
Some pressures on the Home Office’s budget are beyond the Department’s immediate control, but others are not. For example, it is down to the Department to decide how it delivers accommodation for asylum seekers. The Home Affairs Committee is very concerned that the former chief inspector of borders and immigration has said that the Home Office did not appear to have an asylum accommodation strategy. Of course, the use of hotel accommodation is due to the backlog—or, as the Home Secretary corrected me at the Home Affairs Committee, the “queue”. It is apparently not a backlog anymore, but a queue. The queue has been allowed to develop because of the failure of the Home Office to invest in processing asylum claims in an efficient way over a number of years. That has resulted in a much larger bill for accommodation, which we are now having to deal with.
We know that the Home Office is currently spending £8 million a day on accommodating asylum seekers in hotels, which amounts to £2.9 billion a year. Despite the Home Office spending a huge amount, it is not predominantly the Department’s money, because the first 12 months of an asylum seeker’s accommodation is funded through the official development assistance budget. Between 2021-22 and 2023-24, Home Office usage of the ODA budget increased by 226%, from £981 million to £3.2 billion. That forced the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to cease all non-essential programmes, as spending was redirected domestically. The implications have been heavily criticised by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact and the International Development Committee.
Also, the Illegal Migration Act, if implemented in full, will restrict the Home Office’s ability to use the official development assistance budget for asylum seekers, as migrants arriving irregularly will no longer be able to seek asylum.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The right hon. Lady is making an important point about the use of ODA. Does she agree that nothing is forcing the Government to spend ODA in that way? Even if the expenditure has to be counted as ODA, they could make up for it in the FCDO budget. The Government have made a choice to take money away from the FCDO and spend it via the Home Office.
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this is a Government choice. Does the Minister think that spending £3.2 billion on asylum accommodation in the UK is an appropriate use of the ODA budget? What does he say about the FCDO having to cease all its non-essential programmes, which could be important to ensuring that people stay in their home country, rather than feeling that they have to become a migrant? Does he have a plan for how the Home Office will fund asylum accommodation if it can no longer take money from the ODA budget?
One of the Home Office’s alternative approaches to accommodating some asylum seekers—a maximum of around 500 at a time—is the Bibby Stockholm barge. In January 2024, the Home Office’s permanent secretary informed the Home Affairs Committee that it costs £120 a night to accommodate a man on the Bibby Stockholm, as compared with £140 a night in a hotel. That figure is based on full occupancy, but the barge was not fully occupied when we visited in January, and we were led to believe that it will never reach its full capacity of 500. We are also aware that the initial figure did not include the barge’s set-up costs, which amounted to around £22 million. The permanent secretary assured us that when set-up costs were included,
“there is a total-life saving from use of the Bibby Stockholm of £800,000.”
However, we understand that the contract for the barge is for only 18 months. Can the Minister say over what period the total-life saving is calculated? At what level of occupancy does the Bibby Stockholm cease to be value for money? What figures has the average cost per person per night fluctuated between over the past year?
We put all these questions to the permanent secretary, and I am aware that the National Audit Office is conducting a value-for-money audit of asylum accommodation, which will not be published until 22 March. In recent oral evidence sessions with Ministers, the Home Affairs Committee has repeatedly asked about the finances of the Bibby Stockholm and other asylum accommodation sites, but sadly with few meaningful replies.
What specifically is driving the capital budget increase in asylum costs? In the Home Office’s proposal, the capital departmental expenditure limit budget will go up to £1,399,800,000—an increase of £468.5 million. That is a more than 50% increase on the initial budget of £931.3 million. Is that due to the Prime Minister’s announcement in June 2023 that two other barges had been procured, in addition to the Bibby Stockholm—there is no explicit reference to that in the estimates memorandum —or is it for the additional detention facilities required under the Illegal Migration Act?
Secondly, why did the cost of processing an asylum claim go from £9,000 in 2019 to £21,000 in 2022-23? That is a real-terms increase of 109%.
Again, Home Office spending on the UK-Rwanda partnership is a familiar story. The Home Affairs Committee has finally been able to glean that large sums of money have been committed to this scheme, but largely via retrospective disclosures and an accidental leak in an International Monetary Fund board paper in Rwanda. The Committee has, once again, had to join forces with the Public Accounts Committee to ask the National Audit Office to find out the costings of the scheme. I reiterate that it is very unsatisfactory that when we have been holding our normal scrutiny sessions with Ministers and officials to try to get detail on spending and any further commitments, we have repeatedly been met with silence from Ministers and been told to wait until the accounts for the Department are published at the end of the financial year.
Let us be clear: the failure to respond to our requests is not because anyone behind the scenes has judged the value-for-money test of this policy to be so overwhelmingly watertight that disclosures to Parliament are completely unnecessary, unsatisfactory as that would be. On the contrary, the permanent secretary required a ministerial direction in April 2022 to start implementation of the Rwanda partnership, because he judged that there was insufficient evidence of the deterrent effect that had been suggested, and therefore of the scheme being value for money. That ministerial direction has not been revoked, and it is in force today, with even more money being committed to this scheme. As the Institute for Government points out, permanent secretaries have a duty to seek a ministerial direction if they think a spending proposal breaches the value-for-money criteria—that is,
“if something else, or doing nothing, would be cheaper and better”.
That makes it even more important that Parliament can scrutinise this scheme and have the full costs available.
Less than two weeks ago, we learned, via the National Audit Office investigation that the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and I had sought, that the UK Government have committed to making payments to cover asylum processing and operational costs, and an integration package, for each individual relocated to Rwanda, and that these payments can last for five years and total £150,874 per person. Ministers had previously indicated that the per-person payments in the Rwanda scheme would be similar to the per-person cost of processing claims in the UK. Asked at the Home Affairs Committee what the UK processing cost was, the then Minister responsible for illegal migration said that it was £12,000, although we now know that it is £21,000.
Here is what else we have learned: the Home Office has committed to pay the Rwandan Government £370 million under the economic transformation and integration fund. It will also pay an additional £20,000 per individual relocated, and a further £120 million once 300 people have been relocated. That is in addition to the £150,874 per person for asylum processing and operational costs. On top of that, we also have the direct costs incurred by the Home Office in managing and overseeing the scheme and transporting people to Rwanda. As of February 2024, the Home Office had incurred costs of £20 million, which it expects to rise to £28 million by the end of 2023-24. The Home Office estimates that it will incur further costs of approximately £1 million per year in staff costs and £11,000 per individual for flight costs. It would be helpful if the Minister could let the House know whether he now has an airline available to remove people to Rwanda, because that is another question to which we have not been able to get an answer.
The Home Office will also incur costs to escort individuals to Rwanda, including training costs of £12.6 million in 2024-2025 and £1 million per year thereafter in fixed costs, plus further escorting costs that are dependent on the number of flights required. That does not include the wider costs of implementing the Illegal Migration Act 2023, such as the cost of providing sufficient detention facilities to hold people before they are relocated. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain what arrangements are in place for that; that is linked to my question on capital costs.
Will the Minister comment on whether it was a mistake not to make the full set of costs I have just listed known to Members of this House, especially given that Members were legislating on this policy but did not have the information available on cost to make a judgment on value for money? Why did it require an investigation by the National Audit Office to get basic, factual information? Does the Minister think that the permanent secretary is wrong in his assessment that there is insufficient evidence
“to demonstrate that the policy will have a deterrent effect significant enough”
to justify its cost? Is the Minister also able to assist the House on the number of people who will be sent to Rwanda under the Illegal Migration Act after the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill is enacted?
In recent days, it has appeared that the Government will offer asylum seekers whose applications are unsuccessful £3,000 to relocate to Rwanda voluntarily, alongside those forcibly removed under the scheme, and that they too will be entitled to support for five years.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right: the justification that we hear time and again from those on the Government Benches for the Rwanda scheme is that it will break the business model of the people smugglers and traffickers. Does she think that providing a voucher scheme for people traffickers is going to break their business model?
Dame Diana Johnson
The right hon. Gentleman makes his point very clearly. To go back to that new development that we have heard about in recent days, will the Minister be clear with the House about what offer is being made for voluntary relocation? How many individuals will be eligible for the scheme? How much has the Home Office budgeted in total for support costs? The press are reporting that Home Office officials are calling asylum seekers to ask them if they would like to be sent to Rwanda. Is that correct?
In conclusion, for Parliament to be able to do its job, we need a major culture change at the Home Office. Calls for financial information must never be treated as irritating requests to be swatted away; they should be treated as part of the effective lifeblood of scrutiny and good governance. Big question marks hang over Ministers’ spending decisions on asylum and migration, particularly on accommodation and the UK-Rwanda partnership. If the Home Office is confident about how it plans to spend public money, it should have no problem letting Parliament see the full details in advance of how that money will be spent. If it is not confident, then it must change tack, let the light of scrutiny into the Home Office, and develop spending plans that it is willing to share with Parliament and the public.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful and considered remarks of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, and her forensic analysis of the funding. That funding has not been as transparent as it should have been, and I will expand on that point.
I am pleased to be able to speak on the estimates for the Home Office, and to make some wider observations about expenditure. Controlling expenditure in any Government Department has its challenges, especially when events and circumstances, largely beyond the control of any Minister or Government, land on a Government. The covid pandemic, during which I was at the Home Office, was one example of that. There have been other unforeseen events, such as the war in Ukraine, although there was some planning for that, and Operation Pitting, which was a significant cross-Government initiative; funding for its operational costs was worked out by Departments after the event. As a result of such events, spending profiles change.
I can say this because I was in the Treasury a long time ago, and people know my view on fiscal form and fiscal fitness in government: domestic events can create inflationary pressures, just as macro-global economic pressures such as the war in Ukraine can. The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee pointed out the inflationary pressures that were created during the pandemic, because the Government effectively had a monopoly on hotel rooms, which drove prices up. There was no real alternative that could have been adopted, because the Government did not have a plan. I will come on to the type of plan that would not have led to the fiscal situation in which the Home Office now finds itself.
During the pandemic, inevitably, public health advice relating to asylum accommodation resulted in the Government no longer being able to detain people, and distancing measures in asylum accommodation being put in place. That led to the use of hotels and a response to the growth of illegal migration, as highlighted by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. Helpful financial numbers provided by the House of Commons Library show an increase in the figures over the past five years. Moreover, since the publication of the baseline figures of the last spending review settlement, increases have gone up by 110%, so, clearly, there are some significant challenges in this area.
As the wonderful figures in the Treasury’s supplementary estimates demonstrate, the Home Office has a wide range of responsibilities, including vital work around counter-terrorism activities, keeping our streets safe, supporting the police uplift programme, and the work around violence reduction units, which were announced by the Chancellor last week. A lot of the investment that has gone into tackling domestic violence against women and girls, and the lead that the Department has taken on modern day slavery, are critical. That is now business as usual and absolutely important.
The documents mention the responsibilities around issuing visas and passports, and the income and revenue that comes in from that to sustain the system. Then we have control of our borders, immigration and asylum matters. At the heart of these activities must be transparency. Ministers and budget holders must always put transparency and value for money at the forefront of their actions. My mantra was very well known in every Government Department in which I served: we must follow the money, people, activities and outcomes and be fiscally responsible.
As this debate has shown, thanks to the introductory remarks from the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, we must have transparency. It is right that there is accountability and transparency around our key policy decisions, but having seen the figures in the supplementary estimates covering the Home Office, including more than £4 billion of additional funding for resourced staff, asylum support and resettlement and accommodation, a number of issues have been raised, which I know the Minister will seek to address in his response.
I will, if I may, mention something that has been touched on already, which is asylum accommodation. It is obvious that that is not working. Serious questions need to be asked of the Department in relation to ministerial directions and decisions over, at least, the past 14 months. Again, that goes to my point about public expenditure and transparency—and I will come on to Rwanda shortly. Many of the proposals link in with the Nationality and Borders Act 2022—I know that the Chair of the Select Committee mentioned the Illegal Migration Act 2023 as it now is.
When I was in the Home Office, we developed the new plan for immigration, which provided a clear policy on not just asylum accommodation, but reform of the entire system. That enabled us to break down the ultimate cost and be quite transparent about that when planning for future accommodation needs. We were working to establish Greek-style reception centres and to increase detained sites. We wanted not even to use hotels, but to have Government-funded accommodation, which would have assisted the Government in processing claims quickly and promptly. Clearly, that is the crux of the matter, as the Chair of the Select Committee has pointed out, with processing claims going up by more than 100%. Serious questions need to be asked. Why, for example, was the digital level of processing asylum claims that would have taken place in these centres not forthcoming? Why did that information not materialise? That was only one aspect of what should have been the new plan for immigration. Implementing these serious measures would have led to financial transparency and, quite frankly, accountability around public spending.
It would also have had a deterrent effect on those trying to enter the UK through dangerous and illegal routes, reducing the pull factor by having accommodation that is about not just moving from one hotel to another, but processing claims in these centres and having cost-effective solutions. The development of the site at Linton-on-Ouse is one example. That site should have been up and running by October 2022 and would now be in use, supporting the efforts to tackle illegal migration by accommodating more than 1,500 people, addressing some of those wider issues that the Government at the time sought to address. There were, of course, start-up costs involved, but they are all now blended into the estimates, the supplementary estimates and the £4 billion of additional spending being retrospectively sought. As a result of abandoning the plans, the Home Office has, again, fallen behind where it should have been on establishing a robust network of detention sites, proper accommodation facilities, proper processing plans, and transparency and digitalisation, which would have led to fundamental reform of the asylum accommodation system.
Instead, this time last year, what did we have? The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee touched on the infamous barge, Bibby Stockholm, and its set-up costs. In my district of Braintree, we have RAF Wethersfield and all the established problems there, the additional start-up costs, and all the supplementary costs of dealing with problems that were not even anticipated at the outset. Some of those problems were ones that I had raised, such as ill health outbreaks, additional resourcing for policing, and costs that the local council has to pick up, including the county council. When those decisions were made, concerns were raised about the suitability of the locations. It is incredibly disappointing that Ministers at the time were incredibly tin-eared about all this, and not transparent on the funding or the decision making.
My local authorities had to work with me to get the information out of the Home Office. As the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee will know, none of the information was readily available to the Committee, which is simply not acceptable. I am conscious that my colleagues on the Front Bench are having to pick up a lot of this, because they were not Ministers in the Department at the time. It is incredibly unfair. The money in the supplementary estimates is retrospective, but there is an opportunity to be much more transparent, demonstrate that the Department has learned lessons from frankly the most appalling processes and the ministerial indifference in the Home Office over the past 12 months or so, and improve the situation.
That is incredibly important, particularly while we are still dealing with many issues at Wethersfield, which is supposed to reach a full capacity of about 1,700 people. Currently onsite we have around one third of that level, but we have a lot of issues, which again cost money. The Home Office will bear the brunt of that through the various local authorities that are having to deal with this—Braintree District Council and Essex County Council in particular. The issues include onsite medical facilities, access to primary care, mental health, reasonable accommodation, the cost of transport, and all the various associated costs. We now have an issue around class Q, the special development order that has been issued, and what that means for the long-term costs to the Department and for running the site. Again, nothing has been published, leaving my Braintree residents in the dark, along with Parliament, frankly, on the wider cost implications.
The costs associated with illegal migration are clearly staggering, as has been exposed. This may speak to the recent publication of a report by the former chief inspector of borders and immigration, David Neal. Other reports, which the Department not only commissioned but sought to publish, would have led to a much more robust approach around Border Force, agreements with France, and how the Home Office conducted its business. They could have led to some serious reform, good prudent fiscal management, and importantly, proper investment in technology at the border. I suspect that some of that was touched on by David Neal. Alexander Downer conducted a review of Border Force, and gave an excellent report. I do not know whether the Home Affairs Committee even saw it; it seems to have been buried. I know for a fact that it included some very serious and good recommendations, which would have led to fundamental reform at the border. I suspect that David Neal would have agreed with some of the measures.
The Department has been silent on this. I do not think that there has been any progress or implementation of any of the recommendations. Basic things such as better engagement with industry, developing better technologies and taking a more long-term strategic approach to border security are what was planned at the Home Office. It is somewhat unfair to demand that those on the Front Bench explain what happened, but the House should know, because at the end of the day those reports were commissioned to invest in a digital border and in long-term measures that would make our border much more secure and efficient, and to tackle issues such as illegal migration and documentation being disposed of when people entered our country, as well as all the wider challenges that the Minister is familiar with. That touched on the work with France and the funding we gave France, which since my departure has increased to more than £500 million. Again, the public should know and hear much more about the value for money and, more importantly, the outcomes, because those sums are unprecedented.
Also, how is increasing use of surveillance at the border being leveraged to go after the criminal gangs? What about more activity on patrol and in law enforcement along the French coast? I should add that the French coastline is very difficult, given how large it is and how difficult it is to police. I pay tribute to everyone who works in that area, but again, so far this year the number of Channel-crossing arrivals has passed more than 3,500, which is higher than at the same point last year. When half a billion pounds is being spent, it is important that the public and the House see a level of transparency with what is going on.
I will touch on the Rwanda partnership, which is important, and there will be a debate in the House on Monday, when the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill comes back before us. I say that the partnership is important, because I negotiated the original one, but I came to the House and at the outset set out the original costings of £120 million. It was a migration and economic development partnership. Clearly, the principle of the Rwanda partnership as it now stands has moved miles from the original. That is deeply concerning. There has been zero transparency. As the Chair of the Select Committee pointed out, what on earth has gone on with the partnership over the past 12 months, other than more cash being funnelled into it and to the Government of Rwanda?
I will say something about the Government of Rwanda but, on the original partnership, which was world leading, other countries in Europe are still to this day—as I know from conversations that I am having—looking at the model and may follow it. Various European countries have taken an interest because of wider migration issues across Europe and because of destabilisation in the world. However, I add that there has been far too much criticism of the country and Government of Rwanda, and much of that has been ill-informed, misleading and inaccurate. The country has experienced significant economic growth, rising living standards this century—with 1 million more people lifted out of poverty in their country—and increasing life expectancy, so it is important that we do not malign Rwanda.
Rwanda joined the Commonwealth in 2009. It has worked with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to support more than 130,000 refugees. It is a country that is committed to playing a leadership role on the African continent and to make a contribution to tackling one of the biggest challenges that they and we face—I say “they” about those on the African continent—which is mass migration. I pay tribute to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation, Vincent Biruta, and to the High Commissioner in London, because they were outstanding in their engagement with our Government, including me and others. It is important that we make this partnership work.
I am sceptical, I have to say, about what we have read in the press this week—I think that is the best way to put it—on how the partnership will work. That brings me to the issue that has been touched on already: we have to be practical. The Home Office is an operational Department, and day-to-day operational costs are inevitably high. Given the voluntary returns, removals and reception centres—which we do not have now—and the cost of running detained facilities with the required support staff, it is right to negotiate the contracts properly and transparently. Everyone needs to have the right kind of scrutiny.
I say that because something might go wrong, not just with the contracts but when incidents happen—they have happened in the past. The Home Office might have legal action taken against it, such as on the handling of a voluntary return or removal of a migrant. The challenges are enormous, and the reputational—
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend recall that when it was announced that £500 million was being made available to the French for some form of processing centre, the European Union announced the very next day that it was not going to allow them to do it? Does that not send us a big message about the potential waste of money on quite a big scale?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend makes an important point and gives me the chance to expand on that from an operational perspective. That was over a year ago. It was considered a flagship announcement from the Government, but we have not seen that detention centre in France open up yet. Although I think it was due to open in 2025, the Government should report back on it. What has happened to the money? What processes are in place? Are there any updates on that partnership?
My hon. Friend mentions the EU—that would have been the Commission in particular. I have spent a lot of time with the Commission. It was important to have those discussions. Let us not forget that the EU Commission funded the reception centres in Greece, which have gone a long way towards deterring illegal migration to Greece and stopping the awful crossings that were taking place. I pay tribute to the former Greek Minister of Migration and Asylum, Notis Mitarachi, who did an outstanding job. I worked with him on the replication of the Greek-style reception centres in the UK, because, as we showed in the new plan for immigration, we could follow the money, develop transparent operational plans and see their deterrence impact. That is critical.
My final point is about the legislation that this House has passed in the last two years in the asylum and illegal migration space: the Illegal Migration Act 2023, and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which was passed when I was Home Secretary. Ministers and everyone in Government know my view on this, but I want to put on record that it is really not good enough that the legislation that we have passed has not been implemented.
I will speak in particular to the Nationality and Borders Act. If we want to follow the money and drive outcomes, implementing the legislation is crucial. We left in the Department a fully costed operational plan for the implementation of the NABA, as it now is, which would have introduced the one-stop shop. That one-stop shop—the immigration courts and tribunals—would have gone a long way towards reducing costs and the time it takes to process cases. Here we are, 14 months on since the 2022 legislation was enacted, and that has not happened.
Ditto on the reception and accommodation centres. At the time, the costs were envisaged to be £120 million, including for start-up. Processing costs would then have come into it through digitalisation of asylum cases. It is inexcusable that the needle has not been moved on that. It is no longer acceptable for people to just discard such plans, as a result of the revolving door, and say, “Actually, we don’t need these; we can have newer plans.” All that does is kick the can down the road and increase Government expenditure. We are now in the unprecedented situation of the Home Secretary of the day retrospectively trying to get approval for more than £4 billion of public spending for asylum accommodation.
Whether on a partnership with Rwanda, cross-border work with the French authorities, implementation of provisions in our legislation, or delivery of accommodation centres, I can say that plans were in place—absolutely. We must get back on track. This debate should send out two messages—to the Home Office, yes, but also for future spending reviews. We have had this period of annual spending reviews, but we must go back to five-year SR periods, with proper fiscal transparency, led by the Treasury, and Ministers must be held to account on public expenditure. We must go back to the core principle of following money, people and outcomes.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment (a),
“That resources for use for current purposes be reduced by £740,850,000 relating to asylum and migration.”
The amendment stands in my name and that of my honourable colleagues. As the Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), has so clearly laid out, there has been frustration among members of the Committee about the opacity of Home Office spending. There has been obfuscation, delay, denial and downright sleekitness over many months, and from reading the supplementary estimates in front of us, it is still very difficult to get to the bottom of what money has been spent when those estimates come forward for retrospective approval today.
Members on the Government Benches, including current and former Home Office Ministers, are prepared to weigh in publicly and call outrage on the spending of the Home Office, but trying to get any clarity on how the Department utilises its budget has been like trying to nail jelly to a wall. I agree that spending appears to be out of control, but the utter incompetence and abject cruelty at the heart of the Home Office makes things so much worse. If the Home Office was overspending, but at least having a decent set of outcomes and treating people humanely, I would perhaps be a wee bit more forgiving. Instead, it is presiding over a chaotic, mean and dangerous system, where those who are unlucky enough to come within its orbit are drawn into a dystopian nightmare.
It is a pity that due to the timing of this debate, we were not able to have sight of the National Audit Office’s report on asylum accommodation, which is due to be published on Wednesday. I hope the Minister will come to the House next week to speak to that report. We do, however, have information on what kind of service is being provided. Just this week, the food charity Sustain, working with Jesuit Refugee Service UK and Life Seekers Aid, published research that found that,
“People seeking asylum do not have access to sufficient money, kitchen facilities or food to meet their needs, are provided with food that does not meet food hygiene or nutritional standards, in some cases resulting in hospitalisation. Experiences of food were broadly experienced as degrading and dehumanising, especially for mothers unable to feed their children adequately.”
That desperately poor and deeply harmful experience is being provided by Home Office contractors, who have seen their profits soar. Clearsprings and Stay Belvedere Hotels Ltd, for example, have made a combined profit of over £113 million, and Serco and Mears are also profiting handsomely from those lucrative contracts. The UK Government often claim that they want to support displaced people closer to the place from which they have fled, yet the supplementary estimates reveal that they are now quite brazenly pochling the official development assistance budget to the tune of £3.2 million, a staggering 389.6% increase just from the sum in the main estimates. That money is supposed to help the world’s most vulnerable—to support countries and help them flourish. Instead, it is simply boosting the profits of companies that are demonstrably not even providing the very basics of humanity.
Facilities such as the Bibby Stockholm, Napier barracks, Wethersfield and Scampton are being presented as some kind of alternative to hotels, but in many cases they cost just as much if not more, and are no better run. Hotels cost so much because of the delays that the Home Office is presiding over: people left waiting, not just for months but for years at a time, without a decision. The former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), had the cheek to say on Sky News that this was quite deliberate; the Government do not want to speed the process up, because that would make the UK too attractive. They are presiding over their own failure quite deliberately and purposefully, so if the Minister says today that it is terrible that we are spending so much money on hotels, I would ask him to speed up those applications and let people get on with their lives.
The Bibby Stockholm barge is estimated to cost taxpayers £41,000 a day or £15 million a year. With around 300 asylum seekers being housed on that barge, that equates to a cost of about £205 per day per person, the same as an overnight stay in a four-star hotel. Thrown into an indefinite stay in a shared room on an industrial barge moored in an operational port, however, you get the bonus of legionella bacteria in the water supply, as well as anxiety, depression, respiratory illness, infectious diseases and, unfortunately, seeing some of your fellow inmates committing suicide.
I have not had much of an opportunity to speak about the Home Affairs Committee’s visit to the Bibby Stockholm, but I will take this opportunity to put on record the sadness, confusion and frustration of those on board. Those men felt that they were being punished for some unknown misdemeanour—unable to get any peace and quiet, living in impossibly close proximity to people for months at a time, with no certainty as to when that will end, and their health needs not being properly assessed. The vessel was not intended to be lived on 24/7, and despite the tabloid rhetoric, none of those I met on that boat had come on small boats. Some had been international students, forced to claim asylum when the political situation in their home countries deteriorated. One told me:
“The longer you are in here, you turn into a person you don’t know”.
How incredibly sad it is that the UK Government see fit to treat people in that way.
Dame Diana Johnson
I completely agree with what the hon. Lady has said about our visit to the Bibby Stockholm. Does she agree with me that what Wendy Williams said in her review on the Windrush scandal about the Home Office remembering the “face behind the case” seems to have been lost in the way we are now treating some asylum seekers?
Alison Thewliss
The right hon. Member is absolutely correct to point that out. From reading some of the reports of the independent chief inspector, it is very clear that that policy has all but been abandoned. People have lost the sense that they are dealing with actual human beings —with stories, with dignity, with a past and a future—and that these things have been completely lost all together. People are treated as so much less than as if they were actual human beings, and that is quite appalling from any Government. It is appalling to listen to those stories, and to hear what people had been through and what they continue to suffer in those circumstances.
Home Office officials have reportedly raised significant concerns about the cost and feasibility of housing asylum seekers at MDP Wethersfield in Essex and RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire. In addition to the near £15 million to another private contractor to set it up, it is estimated that it will cost about £72 million per year to accommodate people at Wethersfield—a site about which the now former chief inspector of borders and immigration raised concerns about safety. He said that
“there was an overwhelming feeling of hopelessness caused by boredom which invariably, in my experience, leads to violence.”
That was before the site was even at full capacity. It would be useful to know from the Minister what he is doing to address the concerns about violence at the site, because the chief inspector was very clear to the Committee how worried he was about that.
A report published in December by the Helen Bamber Foundation and the Humans for Rights Network found that the asylum accommodation site at Wethersfield is causing “significant” and “irreparable” harm to residents, and recommended that it be shut down as a matter of urgency. Not only will the public cover the cost of the woeful conditions at Wethersfield, but they are also het for the Government’s court fees in any upcoming legal battles. Scampton, similarly, comes in at an estimated £109 million this year.
The detention estate has been growing arms and legs over the past few years, and the estimates provided by the Home Office suggest that the trend is only set to continue. The cost of detaining someone for one day is estimated at about £113 per person. Expanding the detention estate at Campsfield House and Haslar immigration removal centres is expected to come in at about £260 million. Ludicrously, the Home Office has made quite a deliberate choice to pursue these more expensive and more punitive options, despite having clear evidence from the pilots of alternatives to detention, which it itself commissioned, that were found to be significantly cheaper, more effective and with much better health outcomes for those in that system.
It is no secret that the SNP thinks the Rwanda scheme is irredeemably awful. It is unworkable, conspicuous punishment. The Supreme Court has found the scheme to be unlawful. On top of all that, it is of course eye- wateringly expensive. I would like to thank the National Audit Office for its report setting out the known sums so clearly. I find it quite wild that the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), came here today to criticise the ball that she herself started rolling. I guess it has not worked out the way she expected, but I could not really see what she thought would be so great about the scheme in the first place.
The UK’s Rwanda scheme has cost about £220 million so far under the UK-Rwanda partnership, not including the UK Government’s legal costs for defending the plan in the courts. The Home Affairs Committee finally received evidence in November last year that, in addition to the money already sent, additional payments will be made to the Government of Rwanda each year. Quite unbelievably, some of this was only uncovered because somebody in Rwanda let it slip to the International Monetary Fund; it was not through due diligence to our own Parliament or the parliamentary Committees that are supposed to scrutinise these things, but because of a slip in some other documentation.
There is a direct cost of £20 million to the Home Office, which the National Audit Office says is expected to rise to £28 million by the end of 2023-24. There will be £1 million a year in staff costs, £11,000 in flight costs per individual and the as yet unknown costs of escorting individuals to Rwanda. There is also the bounty to Rwanda for the delivery of the first 300 asylum seekers, which is a further one-off £120 million. Whether or not Members believe 300 will actually be sent, the fact is that this is within the documentation.
The National Audit Office report sets out a further payment schedule for each person removed to Rwanda up to a total of £150,874 each. Again, it is entirely unclear how much this will all add up to in the end, because it depends on somebody staying put once they have got to Rwanda, which nobody can guarantee. The NAO says that the numbers are “inherently uncertain”; I would say that that is putting it mildly. Of course, this does not save any money. The UK Government’s own figures estimate that moving an asylum seeker to Rwanda would cost £63,000 more than keeping them in the UK to be processed, so it is no wonder the permanent secretary would not sign it off without ministerial direction.
I do not seek to malign Rwanda or its Government, but we hear a curious dichotomy from Government Members, whereby Rwanda is safe enough that the legislation can pass, but sufficiently scary to serve as a deterrent to those desperate enough to risk their lives crossing the channel in a flimsy inflatable. It cannot be both scary and safe at the same time; it cannot be a deterrent and something that is perfectly reasonable. Those two things cannot exist together.
Bizarrely, we have heard the news just today from Lizzie Dearden at The Independent that the Home Office is so desperate to fill up these flights that it is offering those who have been unsuccessful in their asylum claims £3,000 to go to Rwanda. This is wild stuff, and again it has not been brought to this House as a proposal and has not received any further scrutiny.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Not every country in Europe behaves in the same way and tries to outsource or evade its human rights obligations by exporting refugees and asylum seekers. Does she agree that we ought to give asylum seekers the right to work much quicker so that they can join the labour force and contribute to the economy, rather than be held at great expense in totally unsatisfactory and often totally appalling conditions?
Alison Thewliss
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, and that entirely flips on its head the Government’s argument that asylum seekers are some kind of burden. Many have skills that they wish to bring to the workforce and many have things they wish to contribute; they want to say thank you for being given sanctuary. They have a lot to offer the UK, but the UK Government are not interested and do not see them as people with skills who can contribute in any meaningful way, which is desperately sad.
The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford has suggested that a value for money assessment should take account of asylum seekers who are neither deterred from coming nor removed to Rwanda, because they are now left in a limbo of the Home Office’s own making. They cannot have their asylum claim processed nor in most cases be removed to their home country because of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. They are inadmissible and are unable to work, to contribute and to move on with their lives. Who exactly does this situation benefit and where on earth is the Home Office going to accommodate them? It cannot say.
None of this is sustainable. The new backlog replaced the old one, and over 12,000 people are now appealing to the first-tier tribunal due to slapdash decisions made in haste to meet the Prime Minister’s target last year. Safe and legal routes have been closed down. Money has been given hand over fist to France and Belgium, while Home Office staff are left without the resources they need to do their jobs effectively. The independent chief inspector of borders and immigration noted in his report on asylum casework that staff had taken demotions rather than continue as caseworkers, and managers had tried to shield their teams from difficult messages coming from above. The Guardian has revealed this afternoon that the Atlas database flaws have left 76,000 people listed with incorrect names, photographs or immigration status and cases combined together.
What an absolute guddle this system is. The Home Office is now under investigation, I understand, by the Information Commissioner due to its utter incompetence and inability to process cases properly. The Home Office has pulled off the astonishing feat of creating an asylum system that is simultaneously slow, expensive, shoddy and in some cases unlawful besides. This wastefulness is a pattern of behaviour from a Department that appears to regard those who come to our shores as somehow less than human.
In a cost of living crisis, the Rwanda scheme is a bottomless pit for public funds. The UK Government under either the Tories or Labour cannot find the money for an essentials guarantee, to scrap the two-child limit or for cost of living support for people struggling every day, yet when it comes to dog-whistle politics there is a big blank cheque.
There are limitations on what we as MPs can do about this. The estimates and budgetary processes are entirely inadequate for the purpose, particularly in light of the fact that this is a Department prone to secrecy and misdirection. My SNP colleagues and I have tabled an amendment to reduce the resources for use for current purposes relating to immigration and asylum by £740,850,000. That pertains to our best estimate of how much the supplementary estimate would have to be reduced by to defund the Rwanda plan, the Bibby Stockholm and Wethersfield, Scampton, Campsfield and Haslar immigration removal centres. It is a small part of what the Home Office has wasted on schemes that have absolutely no merit and that cause more harm than they ever will good. I commend our amendment to the House.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I shall speak to the main motion. I listened to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), and I am not entirely sure that she made the case for reducing resources to the Home Office. I will agree with much, but try not to repeat much, of what the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee said.
It has been a long labour of love to try to get relevant information out of Home Office officials. Anything approaching financial figures is always met with a degree of reluctance and opaqueness. Even the Home Affairs Committee—described only yesterday as “Westminster’s best committee” in a leading newspaper by a leading journalist—has been frustrated by the problems we have had when interrogating officials from the Home Office. I in no way direct that criticism at the Minister on the Front Bench and his colleagues, who have been something of a breath of fresh air.
Having been a member of the Committee for 10 years, I can say that our relations with officials and our ability to get information out of them have never been worse. That is a great shame, because we have an important job to do. We are the scrutinisers of the Home Office, not least because it does not have one in the form of a chief inspector of borders and immigration—this debate is on that area—after the recent unfortunate demise of the excellent David Neal, who has yet to be replaced. The Home Affairs Committee’s work is even more important at the moment to try to fill part of that vacuum as best we can.
This is an estimates day debate about figures, and it is a complex area. The whole budget figure that we are looking at is £23.6 billion for the Home Office in 2024-25. The largest increase of £3.9 billion is for asylum support and accommodation. That figure has risen by 733% over the past five years. Net legal migration hit a record 745,000 in the last year, but most of the spend in this area of the Department, and certainly most of the increased spend, is on illegal—or shall we call it irregular—immigration. Those are people arriving without prior permission who are subsequently able to stay, either because they are permitted to stay or because they can for all practical purposes not be deported for various reasons.
The Home Office accounts are split between four areas of spending: day-to-day spending, investment spending, resource day-to-day spend and capital. I want to strip that down into five main areas under irregular immigration headlines. First, there is the money we are spending largely in France on trying to prevent people from coming here in irregular ways in the first place. Secondly, there is the cost of processing irregular migrants when they arrive in our territorial waters and then on our shores, and then the cost of accommodation and policing secure accommodation or hotels, as well as the cost of delays and the backlog—or queues, as the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee said we now have to call it. Thirdly, there is the cost of returning people when we can do so because agreements are in place. Fourthly, there is the cost of those we cannot return or those who do return to countries we could not otherwise return them to because they take a voluntary payment. That includes the cost of the Rwanda scheme.
At the heart of this, the vital question that the Opposition have failed to answer every time they have been challenged on it is: what do we do with people who have come here irregularly—be it through little boats and paying people smugglers, on lorries or through other means—and had their asylum claims firmly rejected, but who come from countries to which it is practically impossible to return them, such as Iran and Eritrea? The purpose of the Rwanda scheme and much of the irregular migration spend is to try to come up with a solution to that particular problem.
Fifthly—this is slightly related—there is the cost of the big net increases in legal migration to infrastructure and services in the UK. Much of the impact of that falls on other Departments. Added to all those areas is the question of who is overseeing whether that substantial investment is achieving what is intended, in the absence of a chief inspector of borders and immigration.
It is important to put in context the whole spend and the whole activity of the Home Office on migration. Too often, we hear, “What a waste of money on the Rwanda scheme.” Much of that is up-front costs, but it must be seen in the context of what we are spending on hotel accommodation in this country while those people who should not have come here are here, and while we cannot send them to their original country or a third country.
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is making an important point. It is also imperative that we recognise that some of the spending is based on forecasts. We constantly hear from the Home Office its forecasts on expected irregular migrants, small boat arrivals and so on. A methodology can be applied to be much more transparent about the funding that is allocated and the deterrence measures that can be put in place, along with all the additional costs. The Home Office should be really transparent about all of that.
Tim Loughton
I am sure that my right hon. Friend is absolutely right that a methodology is being used and that the figures could be available, but the opaqueness that is applied to prevent the Home Affairs Committee and anyone else who wants to get to the bottom of the figures from seeing whether we are getting value for money, let alone cost-effectiveness, is really frustrating. The Home Office must have those calculations—I am sure she saw them in her time at the head of the Home Office—and they should be available to Parliament and those who scrutinise the Department’s activities.
Let me look at the first area, which is effectively the £480 million subsidy that we give to the French police force to police its beaches to try to stop these people getting to the boats in the first place. We know that the number of interceptions has gone up; the trouble is that, by and large, the police do not arrest those people, so they are free to try again the following night and so on with a new boat or dinghy from China, Turkey or one of the other sources.
We have seen all the fantastic kit that the French police have—the drones, the rigid inflatable boats and the dune buggies that the Home Affairs Committee has been on—but the trouble is that people are still getting through. We have this problem because of the absence of French co-operation in detaining and processing people in France to determine their status, as is done in Belgium, where we do not have the problem, as the Committee saw at first hand when we went there.
There is also the whole question of what the French are doing with that kit. There are stories that some of the night drone capability that we provided to them is being used in the south of the country, policing the Mediterranean rather than the channel, with the money having gone on microwaves and such things as well. Are we getting value for money from the £480 million that we are giving to the French police force?
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Member is making a valuable point about money. If I heard him correctly, he suggested that we are spending £480 million on protection along the French coast that is not effective. When we add that to the hundreds of millions spent on the Rwanda scheme—which so far has done nothing—does he agree that if we had been less obsessed with solving the problem at the endpoint, and had instead invested the money in improving the conditions in other countries through international development to make it viable for people to stay in them, as well as in safe and legal routes, we would not have this problem now?
Tim Loughton
The hon. Lady makes a number of rather conflicting arguments. The point that I made right at the top of my speech—I am not sure if she was here—was that we need to see the spend in the whole context. If we are spending money here, it is because the alternative would be spending even more there, not having solved the problem at source.
As someone who defended the 0.7% overseas spending commitment, I agree that this is a global problem on which international co-operation is needed if we are to ensure that people have more incentive, and it is more viable and sustainable, to stay in the countries that they are departing from, not necessarily because of civil war and danger but because of economic conditions linked to climate change. That is why we have such large migration from equatorial and sub-Saharan countries. I completely agree with the hon. Lady. She knows my position on safe and legal routes; I tabled amendments on the subject to the Illegal Migration Act 2023.
The Government need to do more—and will do more —on safe and legal routes, but that should be coupled with being much tougher on those who do not use them because they have no legitimate case for applying for asylum in the United Kingdom. We need to come down on those people hard, to prevent them coming here in the first place. If they do come here, we need to do everything we can to remove them from the country as soon as possible.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend’s authoritative speech. There is a paradox that always strikes me about giving money to the French to stop the small boats coming: if they ever succeeded in stopping the small boats coming, that would mean that France would be the end of the line for those illegal immigrants. That would mean that the French would have to start imposing their own borders, which have largely been dismantled in the context of the EU, to stop the illegal migration into their country. Can we ever really expect the French to co-operate in sealing off the illegal route across the channel?
Tim Loughton
The response is, “To an extent, Lord Copper.” The authorities around Calais who are trying to deal with the crossings said that the year before last, when the Government announced the Rwanda scheme, they saw a big surge in migrants around Calais approaching the French authorities to try to regularise their position in France, because they did not want to risk being put on a plane to Rwanda. Why are so many migrants in the north of France around Calais? They have come to France because they think that there is a chance that they can get to the UK. They would not necessarily go to France if it were clear that they could not get to the UK because they would be stopped by whatever means—hopefully by the French intercepting them in the water or on the beach and bringing them back—and they would be paying money for a round trip. There are different aspects to this.
Tim Loughton
If my right hon. Friend will allow me, I will continue. I know that other Members want to speak, and I have a few more points to make.
My second point is on the whole cost of processing. There are self-inflicted costs, because the Home Office took too long to increase the number of caseworkers to speed up processing time. It has now done that, but it needs to go still further. As of last September, the asylum backlog or queue was 165,411, which was up 11% on the previous year, but up 372% over five years. We have now seen a fourfold increase in the number of decisions.
The Home Affairs Committee was particularly concerned that last year 17,316 asylum seekers withdrew their asylum applications. The permanent secretary and his No. 2 at the Home Office were singularly incapable of telling us what had happened to those 17,316 people and why they withdrew their applications, and of assuring us that they were leaving the UK. It turned out that an awful lot of them had not left the UK, and the whereabouts of rather a lot of them—about a third—are unknown to the Home Office. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what the backlog/queue is now, and what audit has been done on the cost effectiveness of recruiting additional caseworkers, how that feeds through to quicker processing times, how that has benefited us financially, and what the efficiencies are from faster processing.
We also need to know the breakdown of the cost of accommodation and assistance for asylum claims that are in limbo. The former Immigration Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), stated that the Home Office was spending £8.3 million a day, or about £140 per person per night, on hotel accommodation. That was last year, since when some hotels have been taken out of circulation. That is good progress, and hopefully the £8.3 million a day cost is reducing, but how much is spent on accommodating those awaiting initial decisions, especially in the last six months in which they have been waiting?
Secondly, how much is spent on accommodating those who have had their claims rejected but are going through additional appeals processes, or those whom we still cannot deport to their country of origin, although they have gone through appeals processes? Thirdly, how much are we spending on those whose claims have been accepted and have leave to remain, but for whom there is a shortage of long-term and appropriate accommodation to transfer them to? That is the problem we have with Afghan families who, airlifted from Kabul airport, are here legitimately. They are still staying in hotels after many years, largely because it is difficult to find larger houses to accommodate larger families. It is completely unsuitable to have children in hotels for years at a time, when they have to go to school and try to socialise with other children.
As of the end of last year, there were 111,132 individuals in receipt of asylum support. That was down 10% on the figure for September, the previous quarter, but still included about 45,500 people in hotel accommodation. Will the Minister tell us at what rate hotel accommodation is decreasing, and by how much costs are reducing?
I want to touch on the cost of those we can return. An article in the Financial Times earlier this week, in which I was quoted, raised concerns about the shortage of detention spaces. The problem is the growing number of people who have come here since the Illegal Migration Act 2023, and who have no status to be here. They are not in jail; presumably, they are on bail, and some might disappear into the ether. The Home Affairs Committee will visit Brook House next week. Many people have been there a long time because of continuous appeals. How much is that costing? What is the cost of the returns agreements with countries such as Albania? All those are costs on the immigration and asylum budget.
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. There is an important point to make about returns agreements and removing individuals. Costs aside, section 40 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 amended section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 to cover re-entry bans. I do not know whether the Government have implemented that, but unless it is enforced, it will lead to the very problems that he is alluding to: further costs, pressures on accommodation, and entire processes restarted all over again.
Tim Loughton
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are stories—they are not apocryphal; I have heard them on good authority—of people who, under an agreement, have been returned from the UK to Albania, accompanied by an officer. That officer has then returned to Heathrow or Gatwick airport, only to see the person they just returned to Albania in the queue ahead of them, coming back into the country. There are ways and means of getting back into the country. Enforcement is absolutely crucial; otherwise the system is a complete joke—and a very expensive joke. We are returning people on a temporary basis when it should be a permanent arrangement, until and unless they apply legitimately, and are accepted as having a reason to come to the UK legitimately.
All sorts of figures have been bandied around for the cost of the Rwanda scheme; the Home Office has disclosed only the £140 million to Rwanda in the first year of the deal. I absolutely accept that there are all sorts of start-up costs, so I am not troubled by the fact that we are paying money up front. The Rwandans have said that if the scheme does not take off, literally, they will return at least part, if not most, of the money, so there are some assurances there. However, even if the amount we are spending on the Rwanda scheme turns out to be, say, £500 million, given that it costs £8.3 million a day to house people in hotels, the cost of the scheme will be just two months-worth of hotels. There is an economic case for investing in the scheme, because the alternative is people staying in hotels at an expensive rate unless we can find cheaper accommodation for them, so it will not be long before the scheme has paid for itself. We must look at it holistically, in the round.
I have a few questions to leave in the lap of the Minister. First, there is the overall question of why we are accepting so many asylum claimants in the UK. France receives more applications, but rejects twice as many as we do. We must also take account of the fact that some of the returns figures have been slightly distorted. In its rush to clear some of the backlog, the Home Office has invariably gone for low-hanging fruit—some of the easier cases to accept, such as children and women—so the acceptance rates are artificially higher, as it has not dealt with the more problematic cases that are more likely to be rejected. In 2023, the number of people granted refugee status was the highest on record, at more than 62,000. Why is the threshold apparently so much lower in this country than in many other European countries, and what calculations has the Home Office made about the financial savings that would result if we toughened up that arrangement and raised the threshold, so that we rejected more claims in the future?
I asked what would happen to those who have been in limbo since the Illegal Migration Act 2023 came into force. Does the Minister think that we may have to issue some sort of amnesty, as we did previously, to enable people to qualify for assessment of their claims?
I welcome the changes to immigration rules that have been heralded by the Minister. Certain people coming here are dependants who do not need to come with the primary visa applicant, and are likely to be a cost, rather than a contributor, to the Exchequer. There are reasons for us to allow that in certain cases, but according to the 2021 census, the size of the population had risen by 7.4% since the previous census, and the volume of resources and infrastructure have not risen comparatively. Over those 10 years, the number of GP surgeries increased by only 4%, and the number of secondary schools by only 4.9%. The population is rising, and it is forecast that there will be 6.1 million more migrants by 2036. Working people aged between 20 and 64 who were born in the UK have a much higher rate of employment than people who have migrated to the UK.
I agree that immigration is good, but not all types of immigration are necessarily adding to the UK economy rather than drawing on it, so we need to be more discriminating in deciding whom we allow into the country. Genuine refugees fleeing danger certainly have a case for safe haven here, but when it comes to dependants who will not necessarily be contributing to the UK, we need to clamp down on that more, which indeed is what was announced today.
A large part of this policy is about addressing illegal, irregular migration. It is incumbent on anyone who disagrees with it to come up with their own solution to the problem of how we should deal with people who enter the country with no legitimate, credible case for claiming asylum and being granted safe haven, because that is where an awful lot of the money is going. It is absolutely right for us to be able to scrutinise that money properly, and it is absolutely right to expect the Government to give answers about whether it is being used effectively. However, I give credit to the Government for trying to come up with proper, sustainable solutions such as the Rwanda scheme to deal with all the costs of a very inefficient migration system that treats us unfairly, given that people with absolutely no credible case for safe haven from us are choosing to pay people smugglers to cross the channel in the most dangerous and inappropriate way. Frankly, those people are jumping the queue, and the biggest victims are genuine asylum seekers, to whom we have always had a good and generous tradition of giving safe haven. They are the ones who we absolutely need to focus on, and we are spending far too much money on people who are, frankly, gaming our system.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I want to focus my comments on the cost of the Government’s Rwanda policy, particularly as I visited Kigali two weeks ago as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Committee will report on our visit in due course, so any comments that I make today are made in my personal capacity.
It was good that the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), reminded us that information about the cost of the Rwanda scheme has come not from the Government, but from the National Audit Office and other sources. I really query whether the scheme offers value for money, and whether it will work as a deterrent. We heard from the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee about the huge increase in the asylum support, resettlement and accommodation budget, and it is important to put that in context by looking at how many asylum seekers come to the United Kingdom every year. Looking at the figures, we can see that there were asylum claims for about 84,000 individuals in the most recent year—let us say about 80,000. Bear that figure in mind for what I am going to say in a minute.
I completely agree with the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) that it is important not to be rude about the Rwandans, because they are good people, as I will come back to. When I was in Rwanda, I asked Government officials how many asylum seekers they expect to receive from the UK, and they told me that they expect to receive 2,000 over the first four months and 10,000 over the next five years. That is 2,000 per annum, which is 2.5% of the 80,000 asylum seekers who come here every year. What are the Government proposing to do with the rest of them? We need to know about those costs.
The central point I want to make in what little time I have is that we need a system for asylum seekers who come to the United Kingdom. We need to go back to basics and think about an efficient, cost-effective system, but it must be a system whereby the United Kingdom takes its fair share. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has heard evidence on this issue. Looking at the figures for displaced people and refugees, there are 36 million refugees in the world. The idea that they are all coming to the United Kingdom is absolutely ludicrous.
Returning to my trip to Rwanda, I want to give my own impressions. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) makes a very good point: how can Rwanda be a great place to be and safe, but also a deterrent at the same time? I have formed a pretty clear view as to why it is a deterrent. Based on my visits to Rwanda, I agree with the UK Supreme Court that the Rwandan Government and the Rwandan people are acting in good faith, but I also agree with the House of Lords’ International Agreements Committee, which has looked at this issue, that the relevant legislation has not finished going through Parliament, and that the system and the training are in their infancy. It will take a long time for the Rwandans to create an asylum system.
We visited the accommodation in Kigali, which was of a very high quality. We saw only one of the reception areas, but I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it was a hell of a lot nicer than the Bibby Stockholm. Perhaps that is because so many Rwandans have been refugees, owing to their recent history. They were at pains to remind us of how many refugees they have welcomed from over the borders with Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and of how they see refugees as their “friends, brothers and sisters”. I was struck by how that does not accord with the current discourse in the United Kingdom. Perhaps the UK Government should take a leaf out of the Rwandans’ book and see refugees as their friends, brothers and sisters. That might make it easier for them to devise a cost-effective system whereby we take our fair share.
Rwanda has a written constitution, but very few people were able to point to any case law showing people taking advantage of their rights under that constitution. In 2016, the Rwandan Government withdrew the right of Rwandan citizens to individually petition the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights because they did not like the court’s decisions on their dissidents. That sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
Most importantly, the Home Office has prepared a 137-page country information note on human rights in Rwanda that collates sources ranging from the US State Department to Human Rights Watch, and it sets out very serious shortcomings in the protection of human rights in Rwanda. Before we went, my Committee took evidence from dissidents who had concerns about their human rights.
I have written elsewhere about my concern for the protection of LGBT rights in Rwanda. At best, Rwanda is where the United Kingdom was 50 years ago. Yes, it is not criminal to be gay or transgender, but LGBT people have no positive rights, and they live in a society in which stigmatisation and discrimination are common. Nobody was able to give me any examples of anyone being able to exercise their rights through the courts.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Is it not also concerning that the Government’s travel advice for Rwanda states that they cannot guarantee the safety of LGBT people?
Joanna Cherry
Indeed, it is. When I guested at the Home Affairs Committee, I raised with a Minister that we tell LGBT Brits going to Rwanda that they need to be careful as we cannot guarantee their safety, but we are now quite happy to send LGBT asylum seekers there.
I could say a lot more about Rwanda, but it is important to understand why it is a deterrent. People often come here to seek asylum because they have criticised their country’s Government, because they are a human rights defender or because they are gay or transgender. Rwanda is not an attractive country for them, as the United Kingdom is at present.
The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee told us that the UK will pay around £150,000 per person relocated to Rwanda, to cover asylum processing and integration over the first five years. If we apply that to the 12,000 figure given by the Rwandan authorities, that comes to billions of pounds. On what basis can that be said to be cost-effective? Billions of pounds are being spent on sending to Rwanda less than 2.5% of the people who come to these shores seeking asylum. It is a gimmick, and the Government should own up that it is a gimmick. They should not be spending taxpayers’ money on a gimmick and a sop to their Back Benchers.
What does the Minister have to say about the points I have raised today?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I had thought that we had lots of time for this debate, but everything expands. I would be grateful if the two remaining Back-Bench speakers took around eight minutes each. We will then be able to get everyone in, barely.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I will certainly do my best, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, the debate might have expanded even further if any Labour Back Benchers other than the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee had turned up. We SNP Members are accused of disengaging from this place, but four of us have contributed to this debate, compared with only one Member from the official Opposition.
Estimates debates should be among the most important debates each year, as this is the process by which we approve billions of pounds of Government expenditure. Before us is nearly £8 billion set aside for the Home Office. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, many SNP Members take a great interest in the estimates, both the process and the substance. Not so long ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—he should be my right hon. Friend—was called to order and had to leave the Chamber for daring to try to debate the estimates on estimates day. We had been assured by the then Leader of the House that the estimates process is the way to make sure that Scotland’s voice is heard on questions of Government expenditure and Barnett consequentials, and that the English votes for English laws procedure would not stifle the votes or voices of Scottish Members. We may have been delivered from EVEL in this House, but if there is any positive legacy from those unlamented procedures, it is that estimates days are now set aside for the discussion of estimates, and we can debate and indeed vote on detailed aspects of Government expenditure.
That does not mean that the process is not still woefully lacking in effectiveness and the ability to propose substantive changes. In other legislatures, there can be line-by-line examination of a Government’s budget and spending plans, and Members can propose detailed amendments to direct funds to their priority policies or communities. That is not an option available to us, but I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and our estimable colleagues in the SNP Whips Office on their ingenuity in bringing forward the amendment before us today.
The spending of the Home Office, particularly on asylum and immigration, certainly does warrant scrutiny and amendment. When Ministers say that the sums are vast—indeed, the sums spent on asylum accommodation are too high—they are not wrong. But their solutions, their alternatives, are wrong—very wrong. As the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said, the most straightforward and simplest—and also the most practical and dignified—solution to the question of asylum accommodation, is to give asylum seekers the right to work and allow them to pay for their own accommodation. Instead of costing the taxpayer money, let them become taxpayers. Let asylum seekers contribute to the Treasury, our economy and our communities. If Conservative Members are genuinely concerned about community cohesion and integration, surely the way to build that is not to ostracise and “other” asylum seekers, but to allow them to play an active, positive role in our society and economy. There are plenty of examples where immigration in that sense has worked, as we see if we look at the contribution that the Syrian community have made to life on Scotland’s islands since that resettlement scheme was introduced, at how Ukrainians have been welcomed into homes and families and schools and workplaces across the country through those schemes. Of course, we have spoken many times about the impact that Afghans have had in Glasgow, not least through the Glasgow Afghan United organisation, headed up by my good friend, Councillor Abdul Bostani. I invite the Minister to come to Glasgow to meet refugees and asylum seekers such as those supported by Glasgow Afghan United and the Maryhill Integration Network.
Jeremy Corbyn
It was pointed out earlier that the number of asylum seekers, even those coming on small boats, would not be accommodated in Rwanda under the current plan, if that should go ahead. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of those trying to cross from Calais—I have been there and met them—are desperate people, some of whom are victims of war, some of whom are victims of war in Afghanistan and some of whom are victims of war in Afghanistan because they have worked for the British forces there. Surely we need to have a slightly more humanitarian approach to what are desperate people.
Patrick Grady
Yes, I agree entirely on that. The safe and legal routes that do exist for Ukrainians, Syrians and some Afghans are exceptions to the rule. They are the exceptions to the hostile environment, which starts when anybody gets off a plane and has to wait in interminable queues at the UK to get through passport control. It is a hostile environment that can end with the prospect of being deported to Rwanda if the Home Secretary does not like the cut of someone’s jib.
For the past nine years or so, asylum, immigration and visa cases have been at the very top of my constituency case load. Way back in 2105, a constituent of mine, literally a rocket scientist who wanted to contribute to world-class engineering projects at our universities, came to see me because the Home Office was attempting to refuse her a visa. I have lost track of the number of academics, musicians, artists, religious ministers and sometimes even just holidaymakers whose visits to the UK have been cancelled or curtailed by Home Office hostility and inefficiency. We have seen families whose reunion has been denied, small business owners who have given up and moved away, and funerals and weddings missed because the default position of the Home Office is suspicion and hostility towards anybody who wants to come here, unless they are stinking rich, in which case they are very welcome to come straight through the door, on a gold-plated visa.
Even as other parts of the Government proclaim that Britain is great, and say that we need and want skilled and talented entrepreneurs and graduates, the Home Office says, “No, Britain is closed.” I have visited British embassies and high commissions in parts of Africa that have been festooned with bunting and adverts for Chevening scholarships, and then gone to dinner that evening with young people who could not take up their scholarship because they had been denied a visa. I have visited the visa processing centre in Lilongwe, Malawi, and I was grateful for the time they gave me and for the efficiency with which they carry out their role. They take the biometrics and process the paperwork, and they do so quickly and effectively. But then the applications get stuck at the point of decision making, not in Malawi, not with input from our excellent high commission team, but at a remote centre in Pretoria, and that causes frustration, confusion and too often disappointment among the visa applicants. All of that speaks to inefficiencies, systemic and systematic failures within the Home Office.
I want to touch briefly on the question of the Rwanda scheme, as many have. According to the National Audit Office, the scheme will cost £1.8 million per person for the first 300 potential deportees. I had a look online the other day—a year’s full board in Disneyland Paris would cost £100,000 a year. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration have said that the reason they think Rwanda is a deterrent is because it is not the UK; well, Disneyland Paris is not the UK, so there is a quicker and cheaper way of deterring people. If that sounds absurd, it is because the whole scheme is absurd.
We have touched on the question of ODA. It would be interesting to know whether any of the funding under the UK-Rwanda migration and economic development partnership, or the treaty with Rwanda, will be classed as ODA. As I said to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, even if the UK Government have to count some of the money spent on supporting Ukrainian refugees as ODA, that should not be an excuse to minimise the amount of ODA being spent elsewhere by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The Government should never have abandoned the 0.7% target in the first place; they broke a cross-party consensus to do that.
In an independent Scotland, the 0.7% target would be a floor, not a ceiling, for our spending on supporting some of the poorest and most vulnerable people around the world. But then in an independent Scotland, many things will be different and in stark contrast to the decay and decline of Westminster under successive Governments of whatever hue. The Scottish Government have printed commendable papers explaining what a humane asylum, immigration and migration policy would look like. Of course, Brexit has only added to all these costs.
For generations, people have left Scotland to make their homes elsewhere in the world because they were cleared from their land to make way for sheep, because their crops failed, because they wanted to join friends and family who had gone before them, or because they had skills and talents that they wanted to put to use in an economy or society that could benefit from them. Today many people from elsewhere in the world want to make their homes in Scotland and the rest of the UK for precisely the same reasons, but the UK Government say no. They spend vast amounts of money saying no, and they refuse to allow the devolved Administrations to do anything different. So it seems that devolution is in fact the real separatism. With independence, we will rejoin the world and play our part as an open, welcoming, good global citizen.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to take part in this necessary and timely debate. It is necessary because the common thread that has run through just about every contribution is the lack of transparency and accountability in the way the Home Office goes about its business, and in how it accounts to this House for the way in which it goes about its business. It is timely because, as the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said, The Guardian has published an article today about Home Office immigration database errors that affect more than 76,000 people. The hon. Lady, I think, said that it was a guddle. If I may say so, I think that is an uncharacteristic understatement on her part; in fact, it certainly meets the test for being called a right bùrach.
At the heart of the system, the Atlas tool is used by immigration officers and Home Office officials for processing any asylum or immigration dealings. That is underpinned by the snappily titled person centric data platform, which stores a migrant’s interactions with UK immigration systems over time, including visa applications, identity documents and biometric information. It stores the records of 177 million people and is part of a Home Office project to digitise fully visa and immigration systems that has cost more than £400 million since 2014. The PCDP records feed into Atlas, so that Border Force officials can view information and some people seeking to track their own applications can access them—and that is where the problems come to light.
There is an issue of something called “merged identities”. Essentially, merged identities, as I understand it, are of two ordinary people; for example, Madam Deputy Speaker, you may have an application that is live, so you might go in and find my picture attached to your data, or vice versa. How on earth can a Home Office official processing applications possibly hope to make sense of that? Indeed, the person accessing this information online will of course immediately be upset and alarmed at what they are finding; this is something that can bring up very profound feelings. It is an issue not just of data mismanagement—as the hon. Member for Glasgow Central said, the Information Commissioner’s Office is looking into this—but that strikes at the right and opportunity of an individual to access some of the most basic services, rented housing, accommodation, healthcare and so much else.
There is a substantive matter here. Clearly, this is yet another botched Government IT project, but the issue of process matters as well. Members of the House have been asking about the operation of Atlas and the PCDP and they have been given assurances by Ministers. The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), who I had hoped might be in the debate today—fortunately for him, he is not—has given said in a written answer that no “systemic issues” have been identified with Atlas, but the documents that have been seen by The Guardian today clearly contradict that. Either the Minister has been misled by his officials, or he has been told something by his officials that he did not think would be advantageous for Parliament to hear, so the information and the answers have been framed in a particular way. Either way, it is clear that the culture within the Home Office is one that does not respect parliamentary accountability.
I hope that, when the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration, the right hon. and learned Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), comes to reply to the debate, he will tell the House what the Government knew about the problems with the Atlas system and the person centric data platform that underpins it, when they knew that, and why they have not brought information about it to the House. The Guardian has done a tremendous service to this House by exposing the full extent of Home Office failure, but that should not be necessary. We should not be relying on investigative journalists and on people blowing whistles from inside the Home Office; we should be able to take on trust what we are told, but we are told very little, and, on the basis of what we have read in The Guardian today, it seems that we can cannot even trust that.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for securing this important debate and pay tribute to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee for her powerful opening speech and for the outstanding work that she is doing on these issues.
The Home Office spending figures, detailing an astronomical overspend of £5.9 billion last year, represents such a shockingly cavalier attitude to taxpayers’ money that it really does beggar belief. Two thirds of that £5.9 billion was for asylum costs—a staggering £4.3 billion overspend over the past 12 months, taking the total spend on emergency asylum hotels and asylum seeker support up to a quite astonishing £5.4 billion. These costs also include a whopping £1.2 billion to pay for the implementation of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which, let us not forget, has not even been implemented yet.
We also know that, should the Government manage to be able to realise their fever dream of sending asylum seekers rather than Home Secretaries to Rwanda, the first 300 will cost an astonishing £570 million and account for just 1% of the 30,000 asylum seekers who crossed the channel in small boats last year. That works out at almost £2 million per asylum seeker. Just let that sink in: £2 million of British taxpayers’ money to send one asylum seeker to Rwanda. The country knows it, this House knows it, the Home Secretary knows it, and the Minister knows it: the Rwanda scheme is the worst value for money policy in history.
The Conservatives will point to the asylum seekers crossing the channel. It is correct to say that more than 100,000 have made that perilous journey since 2018, which is when the Conservative party started to well and truly lose control of our borders. It is also correct to say that, of that 100,000, a staggering 40,000 have crossed since the current Prime Minister was appointed by default, which tells us all we need to know about his vacuous “Stop the boats” pledge and how it is going. Labour is clear that tackling the Tory boats chaos cannot be achieved through headline-chasing gimmicks, such as the Rwanda plan, which just absorb vast amounts of money, time and resources.
Instead, we need a laser-like focus on practical common-sense measures that get the job done, which is why Labour has set out a detailed plan to smash the criminal smuggler gangs that are running Britain’s borders and trading in human misery. If this Government cannot restore order to the border, then the next Labour Government will, but the fact is that the asylum backlog had already grown fourfold even before the small boats started coming in large numbers. It was the Conservative Government’s decision to downgrade the seniority of asylum decision makers in 2013 that led to the backlog spiralling, due to slower, poorer-quality decision making and larger numbers of appeals, plus high staff turnover, resulting in the total chaos that we are now seeing.
Let us not forget that the Government have an estate of more than 50,000 relatively cost-effective asylum beds that keep the system within budget, but the use of nearly 400 hotels last year to house as many as 56,000 asylum seekers at any one time has sent costs through the roof. According to the House of Commons Library, spending on asylum hotels and support has increased by an astonishing 733% in the past five years alone. That is what happens when we try to cut corners and costs: we end up paying 10 times as much in the long term, clearing up the mess that we have made. It is the definition of a false economy. Labour has a plan to clear the backlog within one year by surging the number of caseworkers, thus saving the taxpayer £2 billion in hotel bills. We will also create a new returns unit, with 1,000 immigration enforcement officers, to remove people from safe countries who have failed in their asylum claims. Those are the key pillars of our plan for a firm, fair and well-managed asylum system.
Of course Britain faces a forced migration challenge caused by increasing geopolitical turbulence and the proliferation of authoritarian regimes, with violence and persecution spreading across the world, but the Government have utterly failed to rise to that challenge. Successive Home Secretaries have had ample opportunity since the small boats started coming in large numbers in 2018 to work with our European partners and allies to end the vile trade of people smuggling in the channel, but rather than seeking to engage constructively they have spent the last six years trashing their working relationships with our European neighbours through their damaging rhetoric and frequent promises to break or ignore international laws and treaties.
The Government have traded hard graft, quiet diplomacy and common sense for unworkable legislation and headline-chasing gimmicks that are not based on reality and are therefore destined to fail. Meanwhile, the public has been forced to watch on helplessly as the criminal gangs have taken hold, with prosecutions of people smugglers down a startling 34% since 2010. We are clear that co-operation with Europe is the only way to restore our border security. Labour has promised a cross-border police unit to go after the criminal gangs upstream by forging a new security partnership with Europol based on intelligence sharing and joint work, paid for by redirecting some of the vast sums of money that are being squandered on the Rwanda shambles.
Given the central role that the Minister is playing in all this, I have the following questions for him. The Prime Minister promised to end the use of hotels for asylum seekers by the end of last year. Can the Minister therefore explain why, at the end of December, there were still more than 46,000 asylum seekers in hotel accommodation? We now know that hundreds of millions of pounds have been committed to the Rwandan Government as part of the Tories’ failed plan. Can he tell me how much of that money the UK will get back if no flights take off?
Can the Minister explain why the Rwanda money could not have been invested in border security instead? Does he truly believe that spending nearly £2 million on every person sent to Rwanda, just to get “a few symbolic flights” off the ground—to quote a previous Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—in an election year represents good value for taxpayers’ money? Does the Minister agree that Rwanda is the worst value for money policy in history? The NAO revealed that the Home Office would spend £11,000 per person on flights to Rwanda. Can the Minister explain why taxpayers are paying 11 times as much as a commercial flight would cost?
The failures of Home Office Ministers are not just impacting on their own budgets and overspends, but causing severe challenges for other Departments and for local councils. As my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee pointed out, a huge amount of the spending is being channelled through overseas development assistance, which is having a huge impact on the amount of ODA available to spend in countries that are generating large numbers of asylum seekers and in the neighbouring countries. It is a lose-lose situation. The money that should be spent to address push factors is instead being spent on hotel bills in this country. Will the Minister therefore set out whether he feels that using ODA in this way is a viable long-term strategy? Does he agree that that is the very definition of robbing Peter to pay Paul, and that it is working against the strategic objectives of ODA and against what any sensible Government should be doing to address the crisis in our asylum system?
The latest estimates are part of a long-running and increasingly predictable pattern. The Home Office goes cap in hand to the Treasury, asking for billions of pounds, over and above what was already a multibillion-pound annual budget, to deal with a set of crises entirely of the Government’s own making. The Treasury then duly signs blank cheque after blank cheque to the Home Office, and yet still somehow manages to make matters worse. Ministers are trying to claim that an alternative to Rwanda would somehow be more expensive, but the problem with that argument is that they are comparing the Rwanda plan with the cost of doing nothing; they are not comparing the Rwanda plan to Labour’s common-sense plan to go after the gangs, to get removals back up and running, and to clear the backlog.
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border said:
“It is not acceptable to spend £8 million a day in the asylum system.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2024; Vol. 746, c. 647.]
That is £3 billion a year, and I could not agree more. It should not be necessary to remind him that it is on his party’s watch that the cost of the asylum system has rocketed tenfold since 2010. That is why the Conservatives need to get out of the way, so that Labour can restore order at our border and fix this broken and unaffordable Tory asylum system. Let us have that general election, and let us have it now.
The Minister for Countering Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)
I start, as other right hon. and hon. Members have done, by paying tribute to and praising the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, which is reportedly the most effective Select Committee in town—I will come back to that point. Seriously, she does an important and vital job.
I gently suggest a couple of things. It is sad to see that the right hon. Lady is so lonely, sitting on her own on the Labour Benches. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) made that point—it is nice to agree with him on something, at least. With due respect to her, however, the right hon. Lady has carried out her role forensically and with diligence, as she always does.
Occasionally, the right hon. Lady is critical of those on the Government Front Bench. That is part of her role, so she is entitled to be, but I will gently push back on her accusations about transparency and say what a pleasure it was to appear before her Committee within hours of being appointed to this role, alongside the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove). In fact, my hon. Friend enjoyed his experience so much that he was back in the Committee this week. From the reports I have seen, it was a genuinely constructive and instructive exchange between those on the Committee and those giving evidence.
Before I turn to the details set out by the Chair of the Select Committee, it is right to say that the Government need no reminding that taxpayers’ interests must come first and foremost when determining our approach to the asylum and immigration systems. It is right to say that no one has done more than this Government to shine a light on the overall costs and on the public money that is being spent, not least every day to house asylum seekers in hotels. I will come back in a few moments to the detail of that, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border has confirmed that his pledge has been exceeded: in fact, more than the 50 hotels that he had pledged would close had been closed by the end of January.
On Rwanda—again, I will come back to the details shortly—it is right to say at this stage why the partnership is needed. It is needed because we cannot go on with the situation where there are fatalities in the channel. For the past eight consecutive months, people have died attempting to cross the channel. There is a moral case, a compassionate case, for saying that we must stop the boats. That is the mission—it is my mission, and one that I am determined to carry out.
Joanna Cherry
Does the Minister appreciate that those of us who question the Rwanda scheme are doing so not because we do not think that the boats should be stopped, but because we think that the Rwanda scheme is not the way to do that and does not provide value for money? Those are the issues that he needs to address in the short time that he has left—whether the Rwanda scheme is value for money.
Michael Tomlinson
I will come back to the hon. and learned Lady’s points—she made a series of points. She is right that she led a Select Committee visit to Rwanda. I very much look forward to seeing the details of that report. My point is that there is a moral and compassionate case for the Rwanda scheme, and if time allows, I will delve into the detail. If time does not allow, there will be further exchanges on Monday, and doubtless in the future, about the Rwanda scheme.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North was kind enough to invite me to Glasgow, so let me turn to his contribution first—briefly, if I may. I endorse his point about there being no one on the Labour Benches. It is perhaps instructive as to where Labour Members’ priorities are that not a single Back Bencher, other than the Chair of the Select Committee, is here in the Chamber to address what is, in my view, the single biggest global challenge facing not just the United Kingdom, France and the EU, but the whole world. Not a single other Labour Back Bencher is here. The hon. Member spoke powerfully on that point, and I agree with him entirely.
Dame Diana Johnson
I think it worth pointing out that the two other Labour members of the Home Affairs Committee are representing Parliament at the United Nations women’s equality summit this week. I am sure that otherwise they would be here supporting us, like other members of the Committee.
Michael Tomlinson
I am very grateful indeed to the right hon. Lady for that point, but there are Labour Members of Parliament other than those two—at the moment, in any event.
Once again, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow North for his points on that. Let me say directly that, yes, I would love to come to Glasgow. He teased and tempted me with football. If I could perhaps encourage him to find a cricket team, I would certainly be willing to go up—my footballing skills are not as they once were. But seriously, I take him up on that offer and look forward to being there. I disagree with him on the Rwanda scheme; he will not be surprised to hear me say so. I hope that I have the chance today—and, if not, on Monday—to set out more details on that.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North had an exchange with the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) about the plea to allow illegal migrants to work in this country. I disagree fundamentally on that point. It will be interesting to see whether the Labour Front Benchers pick up on that and accept it as their policy. It is not my policy; it is not our policy.
Jeremy Corbyn
The point that I was making was that, unlike other countries, we do not encourage and rapidly allow asylum seekers and those granted asylum to work upon arrival. We lose an awful lot of skill from a great number of people who could make a huge contribution to our lives and our economy. We spend a great deal of money preventing them from working. We could change the attitude and the approach on that.
Michael Tomlinson
I understand the right hon. Member’s point; I disagree with it fundamentally. That would be not a deterrent but the opposite of a deterrent: it would be a pull factor and an encouraging factor. I would be very interested to see whether the Labour party adopts that policy—so far, it has been pretty silent on its plans, but it sounds like that may well be one of them.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for her thoughtful and considered remarks. She rightly praised the Chair of the Select Committee, but I also praise my right hon. Friend for her diligence and for being in the Chamber for such an important debate. Her expertise in Treasury matters and in Home Affairs matters has come together during the course of this debate, and the Chamber is grateful for her contribution. I agree with her about the Nationality and Borders Act, and again pay tribute to her for taking that Act through Parliament. I will reflect on her points, particularly in relation to the one-stop shop, which I know is something she has championed.
I also agree with my right hon. Friend about the overall deterrent effect. She rightly mentioned technology and borders and the Downer review. She will, I hope, be reassured to hear that progress is being made, although perhaps not as fast as she would like—she will know of my impatience on this subject as well. We will, and must, crack on with that. As for the money going to Rwanda, she is right: it is an economic, migration and development partnership, as the Home Secretary has set out. That money is going to support things like education, healthcare, agriculture and infrastructure, and I know that my right hon. Friend will welcome that.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) moved her amendment. I encourage hon. Members to disagree with that amendment—I do not think we should be spending less money in this area.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) rightly posed challenges: what do we do with those who are here irregularly and have had their asylum cases rejected, but who we cannot return to Iran or Eritrea? That question has been posed time and again to Opposition Members, and answer comes there none. The third country scheme—the Rwanda scheme—is the answer to that challenge, which is why I am so determined to see it through. I am sure we will have further exchanges on that question as the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill returns to the House and goes through ping-pong next week.
I also thank and praise my hon. Friend for his diligence on the Home Affairs Committee over the past 10 years. Although he may be superficially charming, he is as challenging to Government Front Benchers as the Opposition Members are, if not more challenging; certainly when he gets his pen out and asks those detailed questions, Ministers have to make sure that they are at the ready. He has rightly challenged the French partnership, and I agree with him. I know that the Select Committee has been out to France to see the work that is taking place there. That work is increasing, more French personnel are now deployed, and that is beginning to have an effect. He will have seen the reduction in numbers from last year: crossings are down by 36%. We must reduce those numbers further and redouble our efforts.
My hon. Friend also asked challenging questions about the backlog. The direct answer is that the backlog stands at 95,252 as of the end of December and is down by 28%. We must increase that downward trajectory, and we must increase the upward trajectory in the number of caseworkers and decision makers. Over 2,500 are in place, and I pay tribute to each and every one.
I must, in due deference, give time to the Chair of the Select Committee to wind up in the final few minutes. We will return to the subject of Rwanda on Monday, but I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North for her forensic approach and for bringing this debate to the Chamber of the House of Commons. There will be further debates on Monday; it will be nice to hear more details—or a detail—of what Labour has to offer in this area, because so far it has nothing to offer at all.
Dame Diana Johnson
This has been an excellent debate at which members of the Home Affairs Committee have been well represented, including the deputy Chair, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and the spokesperson for the SNP, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who is a very valued member of the Committee. The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), has spoken, as has the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry).
The key theme that I want the Minister to take away, which almost every speaker referred to, is the lack of transparency from the Home Office. That is the issue that I want the Minister and his colleagues to address. Parliament is not a rubber stamp for whatever the Home Office wishes to do; it has to be accountable to the Home Affairs Committee and to Parliament more generally. I look forward to future meetings of the Committee where Ministers come equipped with all the information that is necessary for our Committee to carry out effective scrutiny on behalf of the House.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am now required to put the Questions necessary—[Interruption.] The Clerks are wondering if it is 5 o’clock yet. It is not quite 5 o’clock, but by the time I say this it will be. I am now required to put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the estimates set down for consideration this day.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, I will put the Questions on motions 2 to 5 together.
Estimates 2024-25 (Navy) Vote A
Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2025, a number not exceeding 39,650 all ranks be maintained for Naval and Marine Service and that numbers in the Reserve Naval and Marines Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2024-25, HC 529.
Estimates 2024-25 (Army) Vote A
Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2025, a number not exceeding 97,710 all ranks be maintained for Army Service and that numbers in the Reserve Land Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2024-25, HC 529.
Estimates 2024-25 (Air) Vote A
Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2025, a number not exceeding 35,800 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service and that numbers in the Reserve Air Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2024–25, HC 529.
Estimates, Excesses 2022-23
[Relevant document: Eighteenth Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, Excess Votes 2022-23, HC 589.]
Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2023, resources, not exceeding £946,445,000, be authorised to make good excesses for use for current purposes as set out in the Statement of Excesses 2022–23, HC 502.
Supplementary Estimates 2023-24
Question put,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2024:
(1) further resources, not exceeding £3,319,371,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 447, HC 500, HC 531, HC 533, HC 575 and HC 587,
(2) the resources authorised for capital purposes be reduced by £11,316,268,000 as so set out, and
(3) a further sum, not exceeding £8,456,085,000, be granted to His Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied to expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Nigel Huddleston.)
St Peter’s Hospital, Maldon
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to have a fellow Essex Member in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Minister, and I am glad to see my constituency neighbours, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois)—on the opposite side of the River Crouch—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel). She and I share the Maldon district between us, and we are working very closely on an issue that is of huge importance to both my constituents and hers.
St Peter’s Hospital in Maldon is a much-loved community hospital. It has been delivering care since the NHS was founded, but the building itself is a former workhouse and is more than 150 years old. We have known for some time that the building has significant problems, although, thanks to the dedication of the staff, the quality of care has been superb. There are significant challenges, which have become worse over time. The hallways are too narrow for stretchers, the floors have not been able to take the weight of the beds, the lift has repeatedly broken down, and there are leaking roofs, asbestos and potentially even a risk of legionnaires’ disease. While money has been spent over the years to maintain the building and keep it going, it has long been recognised that a new purpose-built facility is needed, either on the present site or in a different location. That has been the subject of debate and discussion for a number of years.
In 2003, the annual report of the Maldon and South Chelmsford Primary Care Trust stated that two preferred sites had been identified, that a provisional outline business case approval had been given, and that the new build was scheduled to open at some time towards the end of 2007. It never happened. There were difficulties with establishing ownership of part of the land off Limebrook Way, where it was due to be sited. Since then, we have had a succession of studies and debates about what a new hospital should offer and whether it should be a health hub. Most recently, plans were being drawn up for a new site to be developed to the west of Maldon, on Wycke Hill. However, this proposal became stuck due to the lack of sufficient funding for the access road, and a reduction in the contribution available from the developer and from the section 106 money for the housing being developed nearby.
To meet the anticipated winter pressures, it was announced in August last year that the in-patient beds would be relocated to Brentwood and Rochford, and the birthing unit transferred to St Michael’s Hospital in Braintree. We were told that these changes were only temporary while long-term solutions were found. Despite that, the Mid and South Essex integrated care board announced in January that it was proposing to make the changes permanent and that the out-patient services at St Peter’s would be relocated elsewhere, allowing the building to be eventually closed.
The proposals are subject to a consultation, which has recently been extended to 4 April. The ICB says that 2,600 of its surveys have already been returned. Over 400 people attended a public meeting that I organised with the mayor of Maldon, Councillor Andrew Lay, and another 100 had to be turned away. I have also received nearly 700 email responses to my own survey, and I am currently distributing across the constituency 25,000 leaflets containing a survey. It is already clear that my constituents are unanimous in wanting to see medical services continue in the town. They also believe that the consultation is a cosmetic exercise, with decisions already taken. I have to say that this belief is reinforced by the fact that the two alternative options presented for the in-patient beds currently in St Peter’s both involve closing the wards in the hospital and moving them elsewhere.
The Maldon district is growing steadily. We have something like 3,000 houses currently under construction in Maldon and Heybridge, with another 1,500 across the district. Demand for NHS services is rising steadily, with the GP to patient ratio already one of the worst in the country. Rather than closing NHS facilities, we need more. In addition, Maldon district is geographically spread, with some villages already half an hour’s travel time from Maldon. The travel time to Broomfield, Braintree or Brentwood can be up to an hour or more from villages such as Tillingham or Southminster in the Dengie peninsula, and the idea that an expectant mother in the early stages of giving birth should have to travel an hour is appalling.
The ICB suggested last year that there was an average of just six births per month at the maternity unit in St Peter’s, but the unit was actually closed for a large part of that time, because staff were sent to Chelmsford. Ten years ago, there were over 300 births per year, and the population has grown steadily since that time. As one of the midwives wrote in response to the survey that I am conducting:
“Our unit has seen 1000’s of births over its 75 years, over the past 5 years we have had over a 1000 postnatal stays, mothers who have birthed at Broomfield, then needed ongoing support coming to stay with us, we have taken readmissions from the community with baby’s not feeding well, which in turn warded off a remission to Broomfield where beds are always in short supply. We do in excess of 50 community visits weekly, 80+ clinic appointments weekly, over 20 new bookings a week, and anything between 5-10 appointments a day on our ward for anything extra…We are so much more than the ‘6 births a month’ that was widely reported and made us as a team so very angry and undervalued.”
The availability of in-patient services and a maternity unit are of huge importance to my constituents, but it is the out-patient services on which thousands depend. There are some 80,000 out-patient appointments each year, with a huge range of specialties such as X-rays, blood tests and ophthalmology. Although, unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham, I have not used the birthing unit, I have received physiotherapy at the hospital and am due to have an abdominal aortic aneurysm screening there in the next few weeks.
I welcome the ICB’s assurance that out-patient services will be maintained at St Peter’s until alternative locations in the town are found, but it is essential that they are maintained in Maldon without a break or cessation of service. It is not good enough simply to divide up the different services and to try to slot them into buildings across the town. We need the new hospital or health hub that has been promised for so long. We have seen the new hospital at Braintree and the expansion of Broomfield and Southend, but Maldon has been consistently overlooked.
It was announced in last week’s Budget that the Maldon district is being allocated £5 million of levelling-up money for cultural projects, which I welcome, but what my constituents want is not cultural projects but a new hospital. Essex County Council and the district council have money set aside, but it is unlikely to be sufficient.
I applaud the Government’s continuing investment in the NHS, of which we saw further proof last week, but I ask the Minister to tell the Mid and South Essex ICB to think again and, rather than cutting services, to maintain and expand them so that my constituents have the high-quality, easily accessible healthcare they deserve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The right hon. Lady has not asked me, the Minister or the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) whether she can take part in the debate, but she can ask now.
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
indicated assent.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing the debate, and I echo everything he said in illustrating the sorry and sad situation in which our constituents find themselves with regard to what is a much-loved local hospital. Naturally, we both speak from our personal experience, but it is fair to say that both he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) will have received hefty mailbags of angry correspondence from our constituents who believe that the ICB’s consultation is effectively a slippery slope to permanent closure and the running down of services after last summer’s announcement, which we clearly do not support. It is right that we stand up for our constituents.
I reiterate and echo the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, particularly on the incredible maternity and birthing facility. Nurses from the facility were present at the public meeting held in Witham on Monday evening, and I emphasise the due diligence, care and compassion they provide not just in the birthing unit but in the wider community. The support that the facility gives to new mothers was echoed by everyone in that public meeting.
The reality is that Essex is a very large county, and relocating these services is simply not good enough because of the time it takes to travel to the alternative facilities, and public transport is not available. I emphasise that Maldon is a growing district in both our constituencies; the Westcombe Park development in Heybridge straddles my right hon. Friend’s constituency and mine, and it now has more than 1,000 homes under development.The current local plan runs until 2029 and will see the development of another 5,000 homes. It is simply unsustainable that we have a proposal to close St Peter’s Hospital and relocate services elsewhere in Essex, because we can guarantee that in future years there will be calls to stand up those local medical facilities again. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon said, we must have new facilities in Maldon town, and they have to be future-proofed to meet growing need.
Finally, it is vital that we recognise the overall impact of an ageing and growing population. We have to provide the right kind of medical facilities and give our constituents the assurance that whatever happens with their health, they can have health provision on their doorstep.
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this important debate about the future of NHS services for his constituents. I know that St Peter’s Hospital, which has a long history of delivering local NHS services, is close to his heart and those of many people in his area. He spoke of the dedication of the staff who have worked there over the years and of many debates about the future. I welcome his sustained efforts to bring together stakeholders and ensure that his constituents’ voices are heard. We also heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel); she, too, made sure that her constituents’ voices are heard in this place. It is not the first time that she has raised this matter with me.
I want to assure both my right hon. Friends that the Government believe that NHS reconfigurations should be locally led, and based on clinically evidenced decisions. Any decision about St Peter’s will reflect our commitment to investing in health and care services for Maldon and Mid and South Essex. Let me start by reiterating that no decision has been made on the future of St Peter’s, and that a local consultation will run until 4 April 2024. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon is aware, the local NHS is concerned that the hospital does not meet the required standards for services because of issues with the age, condition and suitability of its buildings. Indeed, he spoke about that a moment ago. St Peter’s was built as a Victorian workhouse and has deteriorated in recent years. That makes the building costly to maintain and it would be expensive to refurbish. The cost of getting the facility up to the standard needed is estimated at more than £18 million.
The St Peter’s site has also struggled to staff services properly, despite the increase in the NHS workforce in the past few years. When the birthing unit was at St Peter’s, it had to be periodically closed due to staff shortages, and there were also clinical safety concerns about the isolation of the unit; there were no other 24-hour services in the building. I heard my right hon. Friend explain that in the past there had been more than 300 births a year in the maternity unit, and I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham had her baby there.
I understand that stroke rehabilitation services in Essex community hospitals are not currently staffed in line with national best practice for specialist stroke units. I am sure that my right hon. Friends’ constituents want services not only on the doorstep, but to be staffed to provide the best possible care. That will be crucial, be it for mothers giving birth and their new babies, or for patients recovering from a stroke, for whom getting the right rehabilitation can make a huge difference to future quality of life. That is why ways to treat and care for patients and better equip facilities with the right level of specialist staff are being considered by the integrated care board.
I understand that other locations in and around Maldon are being considered by the ICB for the other patient services provided at St Peter’s; this will keep services such as out-patient appointments close to the current location. It is crucial that the ICB gets a full understanding of how these proposals will affect local people—of whether expected standards are met, not only of care, but of access. People usually understand that they may need to travel to get to a more specialised service, but it is essential that the services that people need are accessible. As well as considering patients, the ICB must consider families, carers, who need to be able to visit, and of course staff.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham emphasised the size and scale of Essex, and both she and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon spoke of house building and the growing population in the area, which clearly needs to be taken into account by the ICB. I have been assured that the local NHS is engaging and seeking to understand the views of residents before making any final decision. When that decision is made, the ICB must clearly set out how a decision will benefit the constituents of my right hon. Friends and people in the wider area.
I understand that my right hon. Friends are concerned about the adequacy of local consultation on the proposed changes. I am assured by the local NHS that multiple events are being held to discuss the proposals, and at least three have already taken place in Maldon. As we heard earlier, public meetings have already been held, involving my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham. Almost 3,000 people have already completed the online survey since 25 January.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham for raising the closure of St Peter’s in a Westminster Hall debate earlier; my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon raised it in oral questions the other day. I am glad to hear that the NHS will consider the results of a survey undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, and that those views will be fed into any decision. The local NHS is giving people more time to come forward, and this week it announced an extension to the consultation by an additional two weeks.
Mid and South Essex is already one of the best parts of the country for the NHS getting patients back home and to appropriate care settings to recover from a stay in hospital. That strong performance has been supported by Government investment. That includes significant capital funding of £20 million for accident and emergency across 2020-21 and 2021-22; £18 million for the targeted investment fund in 2021-22 and 2022-23; and £7 million for a community diagnostic centre across the same two years. We have invested £61 million in operational capital in 2023-24, and £182 million across the 2023 spending review, which can be used for capital projects and work. I am sure that my right hon. Friends will be in no doubt about the Government’s commitment to the health of their constituents.
I can also assure my right hon. Friends that we have now delivered on our manifesto commitment for 50 million more general practice appointments per year, with nearly 370 million appointments booked across the last 18 months. Our primary care recovery plan is making it quicker and easier for patients to get the help that they need from primary care. On facilities for GPs in Maldon, integrated care boards have delegated responsibility for commissioning primary care services and can prioritise capital funding for an essential system of allocation to invest in primary care estates as needed.
In closing, I thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Maldon, and for Witham, for speaking in the debate and focusing our attention on healthcare in Essex, specifically on the future of St Peter’s Hospital. They have both done an excellent job of ensuring that the views of their constituents are heard, and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so. I am very much looking forward to meeting them to discuss in greater detail the questions we debated today. I am confident that the local NHS has been listening, and I know the importance of St Peter’s to the area. Any change in NHS services must be made with the utmost sensitivity to local views.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Supplementary and Incidental Provisions) Regulations 2024
Draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Financial Penalty) Regulations 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Supplementary and Incidental Provisions) Regulations 2024.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Financial Penalty) Regulations 2024.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz.
The first set of regulations were laid before the House on 30 January 2024, the second on 19 February 2024. These regulations form part of a series of secondary legislation needed to effectively implement the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which I will refer to as “the 2023 Act”. The measures effectively form the basis of a civil penalty regime and offer data- sharing help to ensure that we can fight economic crime.
The 2023 Act is a landmark piece of legislation, which demonstrates the Government’s commitment to tackling economic crime. As I have stressed on many occasions, it will bear down on kleptocrats, criminals and terrorists who abuse our open economy, will significantly strengthen the UK’s reputation as a place where legitimate business can thrive, and will drive dirty money out of the UK.
Passing the 2023 Act was of course only the first step on the journey to make these reforms a reality. We now face the task of designing and implementing the many new processes and procedures at Companies House, underpinned by a substantial programme of secondary legislation that consists of some 50 statutory instruments.
The first of those instruments has been approved by both Houses, which means that I am glad to announce that the first of the 2023 Act’s reforms has already taken effect. Companies House has started to cleanse the register and quickly remove names and addresses that have been used without consent. Going forward, Companies House is turning its attention to register entries that it knows to be problematic and is beginning to remove what it has already identified as manifestly fraudulent filings.
For example, last week there were media reports of hundreds of rogue filings at Companies House, totalling approximately 800 “satisfaction of security” forms. I am pleased to say that, thanks to the registrar’s new powers, all of these fraudulent filings have been taken down swiftly by Companies House. That would not have been possible prior to 4 March.
Although that is already a major improvement, there is much more work to be done. That is why we are here today to debate the next set of regulations in the reform programme.
I will first address the financial penalty regulations. Currently, obligations in the Companies Act 2006, which I will refer to as “the 2006 Act”, relating to the functions of the registrar are enforced primarily through the criminal justice system. The only civil penalty regime that Companies House currently operates under the 2006 Act is the accounts late filing penalty regime, where a company automatically incurs a penalty for failing to file its accounts on time. That regime will remain unaffected by these regulations.
The 2023 Act sets out that the registrar may impose a financial penalty as an alternative to criminal prosecution where the registrar is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a person has engaged in conduct amounting to a relevant offence under the 2006 Act. In turn, this instrument sets out the procedure for the imposition and enforcement of financial penalties.
If the registrar suspects that a person has committed a relevant offence, she may issue a written warning giving them at least 28 days to make representations about their conduct. If the registrar is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has committed a relevant offence, she may issue a penalty notice in writing to that person, giving them 28 days’ notice to pay the penalty. The instrument sets out that financial penalties imposed by the registrar may be fixed, a daily rate or a combination of both. The penalties will be based on the severity of the offence, up to a maximum total of £10,000. In certain cases, more than one penalty can be imposed. This flexibility allows proportionate and effective targeting of those who commit an offence.
The instrument gives the registrar the power to vary or revoke financial penalties on a case-by-case basis —for example, if new information comes to light that aggravates or mitigates any offence. The instrument also sets out the grounds for appeal and the court’s powers in relation to the appeal. This adds to the tools available to the registrar to promote compliance and maintain the integrity of the UK companies register. It means that the registrar will now have the discretion to choose to pursue a financial penalty or to pass over to law enforcement to consider criminal sanction. It is important to note that the 2023 Act allows that, where a civil financial penalty is imposed on a person, it can contribute to that person being disqualified from acting as a UK director.
All of this means that we are striking the right balance between deterring non-compliance and not unduly burdening small business. Companies House’s new intelligence hub will also strengthen the registrar’s role in fighting organised crime. The hub will use data science to identify patterns and threats of economic crime on the register. Via new data-sharing powers, Companies House will proactively share its analysis and intelligence with law enforcement partners and supervisory bodies. That will ensure that evidence of organised crime can be pursued by the most appropriate agency.
This instrument makes minor changes to the Register of Overseas Entities (Penalties and Northern Ireland Dispositions) Regulations 2023. These technical changes ensure consistency between the two financial penalty regimes.
As of 11 March 2024, 30,614 overseas entities had registered with Companies House. A further 857 overseas entities had notified Companies House that they had disposed of all their interests in land before the register opened. That is a very good rate of compliance, as Companies House estimates that 10% of the entities originally in scope are dissolved or struck off. Many of these entities are in the process of being restored to their respective register, and Companies House has been working with overseas jurisdictions to ensure compliance with the requirements.
Companies House has taken robust action against the entities that have failed to comply with the requirements. As of 11 March, more than 400 penalty notices had been issued, with penalties totalling more than £20 million. That includes cases in which Companies House has received representations and appeals that are ongoing.
The next phase in the compliance process is imposing charges against land held by overseas entities where penalties remain unpaid. I will provide a progress update when we debate the next set of regulations relating to the register of overseas entities, which we will lay in Parliament in the coming months.
The other of the two instruments before us today is the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Supplementary and Incidental Provisions) Regulations 2024, which make minor consequential amendments to the 2006 Act and the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. They also introduce minor technical changes to eight pieces of secondary legislation. These regulations ensure that the changes made to the 2006 Act will also apply consistently to the law governing other business entities registered in the UK where that is possible. For example, this lifts restrictions on the use and disclosure of certain data by the registrar, allowing her to share that data more widely, and particularly with public authorities for purposes connected with the exercise of their functions.
In conclusion, I emphasise that the regulations are a further step towards effective implementation of the 2023 Act. I hope that Members will support them. I commend both sets of draft regulations to the Committee.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I start by thanking the Minister for outlining the case for these regulations. I am sure those colleagues who worked long and hard on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 welcome its implementation and the ambition to stamp out economic crime.
I begin with the consequential, supplementary and incidental provisions instrument. This technical instrument will ensure that company law applies coherently by making amendments to other primary and secondary legislation and ensuring that the law operates effectively and consistently for all registrable business entities. It will help strengthen the role of Companies House. It is not forecast to have a material impact and amends various existing laws to enact the 2023 Act, effectively tidying up existing legislation. As such, we are content to support the regulations.
I turn to the financial penalty regulations, which will allow the registrar to impose fines on a person if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that they have committed misconduct, as opposed to resorting to penalties via the criminal justice system. Thus far, the only civil penalty regime operated by Companies House is the late filing penalty regime. In that situation, a company faces an automatic penalty if it fails to submit its accounts within the designated timeframe.
This new regime will operate in conjunction with potential criminal sanctions and will allow the registrar to decide whether to pursue a pathway of financial penalty or criminal sanction. Compared with criminal prosecution, we recognise that civil financial penalties provide a less costly and time-consuming process to hold people to account and to punish wrongdoing. I am conscious that, when the 2023 Act was going through Parliament, this change in the implementation of penalties sparked some debate. However, we are content to support these regulations.
I have one question for the Minister about the support being provided to Companies House. Could he provide some assurances that it is getting the back-up and resources to make sure that it can fulfil its very important role?
I thank everyone for their time in helping to implement these regulations. I know we all want to achieve the shared goal of improving the effectiveness of the way that we tackle and punish economic crime.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I will also be supporting these regulations. The Minister and I have often worked together trying to deal with a great deal of the wreckage that has been caused in the past by either inadequate legislation or, all too often, inadequate or non-existent enforcement. I look forward to these and other new regulations’ having the very quick impact they are designed to.
I am pleased to hear the Minister mention that one batch of fraudulent filings has been cut off very quickly under Companies House’s new powers. I do not know if he is allowed to tell us whether any criminal action is being considered, because it is a criminal offence to submit false information to the register of companies. It raises the question, again, about how we implement these measures if the documents have been filed online from overseas, often from a country that is not particularly friendly to the UK and is quite happy to see the UK’s business environment corrupted.
While we celebrate that success, the Minister may be aware that the wonderful Graham Barrow has identified within the last couple of days that a domestic address in South Lanarkshire is a company director and a sole shareholder of a company. Clearly, there is something false in that filing but, again, it got on to the Companies House register. I hope it will be reviewed quite quickly. Given that it was filed electronically, it should not be too hard to identify who was responsible for that particular piece of false filing.
I welcome the financial penalties regulations, but I have some concerns that this might become a “get out of jail cheap” card for persistent offenders. I hope that, when Companies House publishes the guidance for how it will use these new powers, it recognises that there will be times when financial penalties are appropriate and also times when it is clearly more appropriate to go through the longer and more costly process of criminal prosecutions.
Are there implications for the resourcing of the Courts and Tribunals Service, for appeals, for example? It is under pressure just now. I expect that the resource implications for Companies House have already been identified, because I know there has been an increase in its resources recently.
I have some questions about the penalty notices. Will the Minister explain why he referred to them as civil rather than criminal penalties? There is precedent in, for example, road traffic offences and some public order offences, in respect of which a criminal fixed penalty is applied and that can appear on somebody’s criminal record. If a number of the penalties are applied to somebody, first, is a formal totting-up process specified, so that at some point, as a matter of law rather than the judgment of Companies House, that person can no longer go down that road and will be prosecuted? Secondly, will the penalties appear on a person’s criminal record, so that, if need be, that shows up if they go into sensitive employment? I think the Minister mentioned something about the relevance to possible director disqualification proceedings, but will he confirm that the penalties will be a relevant factor in considering whether a director is fit to continue in post?
I have a few questions about the provisions on offences concerned with the audit of a company. The Minister will know that some of the companies that I have been most concerned about have, by various means, managed to avoid having to produce audited sets of accounts. For example, if the whole Blackmore Bond group had had to be audited to professional standards, the problems would have been identified several years earlier. There are massive questions about the one part of the group that was supposed to get audited. There were glaring mis-statements in some of the accounts that the auditors signed off on. We cannot allow that to happen. One of Blackmore Bond’s annual reports almost said, in so many words, “We are a Ponzi scheme,” but neither Companies House nor the auditors seemed to pick that up.
All that is relevant, of course, only if a company is required to publish detailed accounts and certainly have them audited, which does not usually include companies that are regarded as small companies for the purposes of the legislation, but which also have the capacity, and occasionally the willingness, to take substantial amounts of money, often running into the tens of millions of pounds, from innocent members of the public. Are there any plans to allow the registrar, in exceptional circumstances, to require, in the public interest, an audit, or the publication, of full sets of accounts for companies for which that otherwise would not be required? For example, we sometimes see whole sets of associated companies that are incorporated, trade for a few years and are wound up, never having produced a set of accounts, and everything then transfers to a different company that trades for a few years. It is possible for rogue directors to run a business empire for 10 or 15 years without ever having to submit a set of audited accounts. Are there any plans for legislation to close that loophole? Again, a provision of that kind would have stopped a lot of the Blackmore Bonds of this world. It would not have stopped Blackmore Bond completely, but it would have identified it sooner and at least restricted the damage inflicted on all our constituents.
As with another statutory instrument on economic crime that we debated not so long ago, I welcome these regulations. The Minister will know that I did not think the economic crime Act itself went far enough, and I hope that action will be taken soon to strengthen it. I am always impatient about action to clamp down on economic crime, because too many people have been getting away with it for far too long. One thing I like about the provisions is that they allow rogue directors and their companies to take a financial hit much more quickly. Most of the enforcement action available up until now has been long-winded and can be very expensive, and it is quite possible for the villains to delay it so much that, in effect, when justice is delayed, it is seen to be completely denied.
I welcome the change and, as I said, will certainly support the two sets of regulations. I look forward to an opportunity for either me or one of my colleagues to consider a number of the other statutory instruments that the Minister is working hard to bring before us.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank Committee members for their valuable contributions to the debate. The shadow Minister asked about resources; the Government provided £63 million to start the work at Companies House on the change from having a dumb register to having a proactive registrar who maintains the integrity of the register. Also, £20 million was provided last year through the economic crime levy, which will be one of the future sources of funding. The key area for funding is the uplift in the registration fees and annual filing fees at Companies House. It used to be £12 to register a company; it is now £50. It used to be £13 to lodge an annual return; it is now £34. We think that provides Companies House and the Insolvency Service, which is the enforcement body for such matters, with the extra resources needed, and hundreds more people will come as a result. It will also fund things such as the intelligence hub, which is hugely important.
The hon. Member for Glenrothes might want to alert Companies House about the address that has been used improperly. Companies House should then deal with that, and can do so much more quickly as a result of the new powers.
Peter Grant
I am sure it will come as no surprise to the Minister to hear that Mr Barrow has already done that. We look forward to that company being removed from the register quite soon. One of the things that I found interesting is that the address used is not the company’s registered address.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman offline about that particular case, but any Member of this House or member of the public can alert Companies House about incorrect filings. As I say, as a result of what we have already done, that can be acted on much more quickly.
The hon. Gentleman talked about disqualification, and yes, absolutely, penalties can, as I said in my opening speech, contribute to a decision on disqualification. The penalties are civil penalties, but where the registrar feels that the conduct or offences are sufficiently serious, they can pass that on to the relevant prosecution body —the Insolvency Service, the police, the National Crime Agency or others. That is the kind of approach that Companies House typically takes.
The hon. Gentleman raised Blackmore Bond again, and has done a fantastic job of raising that on so many occasions. We have finally seen the FCA actually do something about it, as a result of much work. I remind the hon. Gentleman that what underpins the whole regime is the recognition that it is impossible, given the number of records, for Companies House to be a policeman of every single record and everything that happens. Five million companies are on the register, and 800,000 were registered last year alone, so it is not practical to look at every single one, but there are serious consequences if people improperly or falsely file information, particularly if they do so maliciously. They can be sentenced to up to two years in prison. That underpins the regime as well.
I thank you, Ms Vaz. The debate has highlighted the need for a robust financial penalty regime at Companies House, as well as consistency in the law that governs business entities. I commend both sets of draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Financial Penalty) Regulations 2024
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Financial Penalty) Regulations 2024.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (S.I., 2024, No. 218).
This statutory instrument contains measures to deter Russia from continuing its illegal invasion of Ukraine; specifically, it targets the key sources of revenue that Putin is using to execute the invasion. It was laid on 28 February 2024 under powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, and entered into force on 1 March. It has been considered and not reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. This regulations contain trade measures developed in close co-ordination with our G7 allies, and ratchet up the pressure on Russia’s war machine and economy as part of the most severe package of economic sanctions the country has ever faced.
In 2022, Russia earned an estimated $3.5 billion from the export of diamonds. The UK was among the first to address that income stream by sanctioning Alrosa, Russia’s largest state-owned diamond producer, which is estimated to hold a 30% share in the global diamond market, and its then chief executive officer, Sergey Ivanov. Following that, we placed an additional 35-percentage-point tariff on imports of Russian diamonds in April 2022. On 1 January this year, we acted to reduce that income stream to the Russian regime still further by completely banning the import to the UK of diamonds from Russia. On 24 February this year, among a package of 50 new sanctions to mark the second year of the invasion, we sanctioned two further Russian diamond companies and five individuals, including Pavel Alekseevich Marinychev, the new CEO of Alrosa.
Today we are going even further. As we announced in December, the G7 is acting together to curtail the flow of Russian diamonds into the world’s largest consumer market of diamonds. This legislation, prepared in close co-ordination with our G7 partners, bans the import of Russian diamonds that are processed in third countries. Previously, a rough Russian stone could be processed elsewhere, effectively transforming that stone’s origin; it will now remain banned, regardless of any intermediate destination. That will first apply to stones equal to or larger than 1 carat, or the equivalent to 0.2 grams or larger, from 1 March this year. From 1 September, it will drop to stones equal to or larger than 0.5 carats, or equivalent to 0.1 grams or larger. The legislation will also ban the provision of technical assistance and brokering and financial services in connection with the import of third-country-processed Russian diamonds.
I hope I have alluded to the complex, technical nature of the ban and, importantly, its implementation and enforcement will remain a challenge due to the difficulties involved in determining the source of a processed stone. It has been many months in the making, and more time will be required to ensure that the implementation of the measures strikes the right balance between removing Russian diamonds from the G7 supply chain and avoiding unintended consequences to industry and producer nations. Nevertheless, we believe the measures stand as a testament to the continued appetite, not just here in the UK but among all our international partners and allies, to deny Putin funds for his illegal invasion.
To conclude, the latest measures demonstrate our determination to target those who participate in or facilitate Putin’s illegal war. Overall, the UK has sanctioned more than 2,000 individuals and entities, with 1,700 individuals having been sanctioned since the illegal invasion. More than £20 billion-worth of UK-Russian trade is now under sanction, resulting in a 99.64% fall in Russian imports to the UK. If we compare exports one year before and one year after the invasion, we see there has been a 77% fall in UK exports to Russia. This demonstrate that sanctions are working. Russia is increasingly isolated and cut off from western markets, services and supply chains. Key sectors of the Russian economy have fallen off a cliff, and its economic outlook is bleak.
The UK Government will continue to use our sanctions to ramp up the pressure until Putin ends his illegal invasion of Ukraine. Sanctions are working and the effects are cumulative; we must stay the course and keep up the strong work we have delivered over the last two years, and we welcome the clear and continued cross-party support for that action. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank the Minister for setting out the regulations.
Last month, we reached the two-year point since the initiation of this phase of President Putin’s egregious and unlawful war against the people of Ukraine. For more than two years, Ukraine has stood defiant against Putin’s warped imperial ambitions, and the price its people have been forced to pay has been immense. I reiterate Labour’s unwavering support for Ukraine and NATO, and our commitment to continue to support the UK Government. Despite the vast political difficulties currently facing our country, in supporting Ukraine we are wholly united.
We will continue to support measures such as the regulations, but we will also be candid and frank with the Minister when we believe that progress is not being made quickly enough, or where we see enduring oversights and gaps in the UK regime. Given the precarious global outlook, the prevalence of conflict elsewhere around the world and Putin’s growing tyranny at home, we must ensure that Ukraine’s victory remains a priority for the UK Government, as well as holding the criminal Russian regime to account, and our sanctions regime is integral to doing that.
Labour will support the regulations and will not seek to divide the Committee. The banning of the import of Russian diamonds processed in third countries is a common-sense measure, which represents a necessary additional step by the UK to cut off streams of finance that continue to flow into Russia’s war machine. Time and again, the shadow Europe Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty)—and others have made clear the challenge posed by third-country refinement as a means to illicitly import various Russian-origin goods and commodities into the UK, and it is welcome to see the Government finally taking our legitimate concern seriously.
I have some questions for the Minister. First, what steps are the Government now taking to seriously act on the alleged importation, via third countries, of Russian-origin oil to the UK? I am sure all Committee members agree that it would be absolutely unconscionable if Russian-origin oil refined elsewhere was still reaching UK shores. I hope the Minister can reassure us that the Government are taking our concerns seriously, and that commensurate action will be taken to address them.
Secondly, will the Minister elaborate on why the regulations will in the first instance apply only to stones equal to or larger than 1 carat from 1 March, and why that will not drop down to stones equal to or larger than 0.5 carats until 1 September? It seems like an unduly long time for the regulations to be expanded. I hope the Minister can account for why that is the case, and explain what assessment has been made of the delay in terms of the volume of imports and their value for the Russian Federation.
Thirdly, why has it taken so long for the measures to be devised and enacted? As I said, we are more than two years into this egregious war and obvious gaps in the regime are still being papered over. Will the Minister speak to the current resourcing levels at the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, and explain what recent assessment has been made pertaining to the speed at which we are acting?
Finally, are our allies and partners implementing the same ban on third-party imports? There seems to be less utility in bringing in such a prohibition if our allies and partners are not doing so alongside us. Will the Minister set out how effectively the Government are co-ordinating with our allies to reach shared goals on the implementation of sanctions?
I hope the Minister can provide the Committee with some answers to those questions and assure us that these issues still have the Government’s focus, what with everything else going on. As I said, we will support the regulations and we will not seek to divide the Committee. Ukraine’s victory against Russian barbarism should remain a key foreign policy priority in an increasingly precarious global outlook, and we will continue to do our part to support the Government in taking the necessary steps to achieve that.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and for the positive support that we have in the room today.
The regulations are the latest addition to our package of sanctions. As all colleagues know, we continue to work on areas where we know we can make sanctions that will have bite and impact moving forwards. The sanctions we have brought in so far have taken away over $400 billion of resource that would otherwise have been available to Putin to fund his war; it would have been something like four years’ worth of funding. They are a really impactful set of sanctions to date but, as I say, we continue to keep all issues under review, as ever.
I will try to answer the hon. Lady’s questions, but if I miss anything, I will be happy to write to her. She raised issues relating to oil, which is one of the really difficult questions. Although the oil price cap has depressed the potential value of the oil that Putin can sell, we continue to have limitations. The hon. Lady raised an important point about the challenges around the shadow and dark fleets of oil that we now see moving around the world. By definition, they are more hidden, and intentionally so in order that both the oil price cap and those flows can be less visible. We are working with colleagues and allies across the G7 and more widely to continue to try to get ahead of the issue, and we are working with international friends to encourage them not to find themselves participating in shadow fleet activity. We are also impressing upon countries why we are bringing in sanctions and encouraging them to think in a similar way.
The hon. Lady raised the issues of diamonds—I never thought I would be discussing the size of carats of diamond in a Delegated Legislation Committee, I have to say; it is a strange conversation. On the challenge of the existing framework, we expect the impact on business to be around £10 million a year. There is a challenge around the different sizes; the hon. Lady mentioned the timeframe of bringing in the larger ones and then the smaller ones. The revenue levels for the smaller ones are much lower anyway. As we always do with sanctions, we are thinking about the wider impact on legitimate trades. With this statutory instrument we are balancing the needs of the market for smaller diamonds—those below half a carat—and of the legitimate, non-Russian producer nations, so that we can have the greatest impact on Russian supply lines while allowing the perfectly legitimate markets to continue as they are. It is a challenge with all our sanctions to balance those two things. Impact is important, but we must ensure that we do not cause undue harm to legitimate trade.
The hon. Lady mention the important issue of the continuing resourcing levels for the OFSI—the Treasury’s enforcement arm, if that is the right way to describe it. Through the £50 million of economic deterrence initiative funding that we got in last year’s Budget, we have been able both to grow our sanctions directorate in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and, importantly, to help the Treasury to grow its enforcement arm, OFSI. We have also enabled the Department for Business and Trade to set up its enforcement arm, the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation, to ensure that we not only make policy that sets out the sanctions limitations but enforce against those who try to breach them. The teams are incredibly strong and are much larger than they were, but we obviously keep that under review—we sadly may have to keep doing this for some time—to ensure that we have both the skills and the numbers we need to support delivery.
I hope I have answered the hon. Lady’s questions. We will continue to commit to using sanctions to keep up the pressure until Putin ends his illegal war. The regulations are another step in helping to reduce important revenue that could be sourced for Putin’s regime, so we will continue to use the tools we have. We will continue to work in concert both with our G7 allies and more widely with friends around the world. We all want to do all that we can to restrict Russia’s ability to deliver its terrible war machine. We stand firm and resolute alongside the people of Ukraine, and we will continue to support them until they prevail.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
St Patrick’s Day: Irish Diaspora in the UK
(1 month, 3 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
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I call Rebecca Long Bailey to move this highly appropriate and fantastic motion.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered St Patrick’s Day and the contribution of the Irish diaspora to the UK.
Thank you, Dame Siobhain. I thank my co-sponsor, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), as well as all Members who supported the application for this very important debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on Ireland and the Irish in Britain, for her support and her ongoing work championing the Irish diaspora in Britain.
As we know, the feast of St Patrick will be celebrated on Sunday. Here in the UK, we will be celebrating the strong cultural, political and business ties between Britain and Ireland, and the immense contribution of the Irish diaspora in Britain—and what a contribution it continues to be. Niall Gallagher, the chairman of Irish Heritage, has described the contribution of the Irish to cultural life in the UK as “incalculable”. The contribution of Irish labour to the British construction industry was described by Sir William McAlpine as “immeasurable”. As of June 2023, 13,700 members of NHS staff in England reported their nationality as Irish, including around 2,300 doctors and over 4,200 nurses. When President Higgins came to Manchester 10 years ago, he said that 55,000 directors who are Irish sit on the boards of British companies, and that number is even bigger today. The brightest and best who lay claim to an Irish heritage are smashing the glass ceiling in every aspect of working and public life, and I am proud to celebrate them today.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her kind words about the all-party group. At its meeting this week, we remembered our friend Sir Tony Lloyd and how proud he was to talk in these debates, as well as how we as a community recognise both the past and the future of the changing diaspora. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as recognising the diaspora’s contribution, it is important that we celebrate the generations coming forward and our continual travel across these islands as we plan for the future?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I also place on record my thanks to the late, great Tony Lloyd, who was my constituency MP when I was a child. He was a huge champion of the Irish community in Greater Manchester, and his legacy lives on today. My hon. Friend is right that it is important to remember that identities and links are changing year on year, with each passing generation, whether they come here to call Britain their home or have third, fourth or fifth-generation children and grandchildren who try to keep their cultural heritage and ties going.
The social and economic impact of the Irish diaspora in the UK and across the world has been duly recognised by the Irish Government in Ireland’s diaspora strategy, which aims to celebrate and strengthen the social, economic and cultural bonds between Britain, Ireland and other parts of the world. The strategy refers to the
“diverse and dynamic global community connected to Ireland through ties of citizenship, heritage and affinity, retaining a strong sense of Irish identity that has remained vibrant over the ages.”
At the time of the 2021 census, there were about 523,000 Irish-born people living in England and Wales alone, but those figures capture only a fraction of the second and third generations with Irish heritage. Bronwen Walter, emerita professor of Irish diaspora studies at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, estimated a few years ago that there are roughly 5 million people with at least one Irish parent or grandparent.
As visits to Irish cultural and community centres across Britain will show, the intergenerational community is thriving. Irish in Britain has stated:
“The numbers of people frequenting these centres, as well as the profiles of those actively involved in running activities at these cultural hubs confirm the increasing diversity of people who embrace their Irish heritage”.
Every first, second or even third-generation Irish diaspora member will know that when we hear a surname that sounds Irish, or have an inkling that someone has a bit of Irish in their background, we always set about finding out where their relatives—especially their parents or grandparents—are from, even down to the road that they lived on, in case anybody might know them. We want to check the pedigree. I will get that bit out of the way first by doing a little bit of a pedigree check on myself, for anyone who wants to know.
My mum, who was a Kelly before she married, is from Galway and my dad is a Long from Belfast. We have an interesting story about the Galway Kellys, if anyone knows the city: apparently my mum’s family had the shop and lived in the famous historical focal point there called the Spanish Arch—[Interruption.] Yes, I know! The Kellys have laid claim to that historical link for years. Anyone who was anyone was told of their claim to that important building. Then one day, while we were wandering about the Galway City Museum, we came across an old hand-written logbook, which stated the spooky fact that before the Kellys—hundreds of years before, in fact, because the Spanish Arch was built in the 1500s—a Bishop Long had lived there. That gave my dad cause to claim that the Spanish Arch was actually the ancestral home of the Longs, something he stated was further proven by the fact that the lane next to the arch, which runs along the harbour walls in Galway, is called The Long Walk. Suffice to say the Kelly relatives were not impressed at my dad’s protestations; they had always thought that The Long Walk was called that because it was a long road.
Further pedigree checks have been carried out on members of my family. My husband is a Bailey. He has no known Irish ancestry, but he still had to go through his own pedigree check when he was presented to the family many years ago. That escalated to the point that, during one family visit to Galway just before we married, everyone in the local pub that my aunt and uncle frequent had been furiously researching the Bailey family name, to check out my husband and make sure that he was all right for me to marry. Despite his having no known Irish links, they presented him with a genealogical history of the Irish surname Bailey, to prove to him that he actually had an Irish surname and therefore was Irish somewhere along the line, even if he did not know it yet. They also found him a castle allegedly owned by generations of the Bailey family, and presented him with a picture and details about it, so that he could check out whether he had any ancestral claim to it.
Joking aside, I was proud to grow up immersed in our thriving Greater Manchester Irish community. Every year, I was dispatched to the Irish centre, St Kentigern’s, Chorlton Irish Club and the Southern—you name it—to hear the music, arts and culture of my heritage. I read my mum’s copy of The Irish Post every week, which was the voice of the Irish in Britain, because it was important to know who we were and where we came from, and to foster that duty to keep our heritage alive for future generations.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend just mentioned The Irish Post. It is worth paying tribute to Breandán Mac Lua, who was the editor of The Irish Post and who held the Irish community together with information and community activities, even in the darkest of times. He linked up with Brendan Mulkere, the musician who taught different generations Irish dance, Irish fiddle and Irish whistle, particularly in London. That generation, in the toughest of times, held things together.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. The Irish Post was not only the voice of the Irish in Britain, but a lifeline to many people who had emigrated here, often in very difficult times, and acted as a support mechanism to bring communities together. They knew what was happening in the towns and cities across the UK and, despite the troubles that many people might have faced, they felt that they were not alone.
Indeed, the huge Irish diaspora across the north of England has been recognised by the Irish Government, who have opened the consulate general of Ireland for the north of England. Its establishment reflects a strong commitment to developing the British-Irish relationship and will strengthen the political, commercial, community and cultural ties between Ireland and the north of England.
Describing the contribution of the Irish community in Greater Manchester, Ireland’s President Michael Higgins has said that they had given the area countless talented footballers, vibrant cultural festivals, talented students, writers and businesspeople. For example, it was the Irish who made the greatest city on Earth—Salford, of course—a city in its own right. During the mid-19th century, there was an influx of Irish people into the Salford area, partly due to the great hunger in Ireland. In 1848, Salford Roman Catholic cathedral was consecrated, reflecting Salford’s large Irish-born community at the time. It was also the Irish who built the Manchester ship canal, which spurred on the industrial revolution in the north-west.
We have made our mark on culture and music too: from renowned playwright Shelagh Delaney to Shaun Ryder of the Happy Mondays, the list of successful Irish Salfordians who made their mark on the world is endless. It is also said that the famous song about Salford, “Dirty Old Town”, written by Salfordian Ewan MacColl, has all but taken out its own Irish citizenship.
The Irish community in Salford was at the heart of historical political theory and political activism. One example, Mary Burns, was a working-class woman with Irish parents, best known as the lifelong partner of Friedrich Engels. Sadly, we do not hear much about her, because they were living quite a bohemian lifestyle—living in sin was a big no-no in those days, and Engels got rid of all his personal letters to Karl Marx about Mary and himself after the latter’s death. We therefore know very little about Mary Burns, but it is said that Burns guided Engels through Salford, showing him the horrific poverty of Salford and Manchester, influencing his thinking and research, which later resulted in the well-known political work, “The Condition of the Working Class in England”.
We also lay claim to another fierce political activist in Salford: Eva Gore-Booth, the famous Salford suffragette and trade unionist, and the younger sister of Constance Markievicz. The two sisters spent their early years in Sligo, with Constance ultimately doing her thing in Ireland and Eva making her way to Salford, where she campaigned for women’s suffrage and trade unionism, and helped to set up the Manchester and Salford Women’s Trade Union Council, a precursor to the TUC we know today.
It is, however, often the less famous people who have the most evocative stories to tell. Irish in Britain has recently launched its “Look Back to Look Forward” exhibition—I urge anyone who does not get a chance to see it in person to check it out on the Irish in Britain website. The exhibition looks at the community’s journey over the last 50 years, sharing personal stories and the struggles and triumphs that have shaped each family’s history. The project was launched because many Irish immigrants who have settled in Britain since 1973 are now elderly, risking the loss of their migration memories. The project has shared those important voices to ensure that their legacies endure.
Some of those voices came to Britain to escape cultural conservatism, conflict or discrimination; others left Ireland for economic reasons. Each generation who came faced their own challenges and opportunities, from those who left home in search of a hopeful future but endured the horrific racism of the “No blacks, no Irish, no dogs” era in the late ’60s and early ’70s to those who faced less direct forms of racism during the Troubles. Many found greater freedoms and opportunities, and worked hard to build a life, businesses and a bright future for their families. Others saw the growing community and sought to build a network of support and shared cultural heritage that endures in cities and towns across the UK today. The exhibition highlights the multifaceted journey of Irish immigrants and their enduring impact on Britain. No two stories are the same, and the stories exhibited celebrate the shared heritage and contributions of the Irish diaspora.
On the issue of embracing Irish heritage, those who have it will know, as the Irish Times pointed out many years ago when finding out about Tony Blair’s Irish ancestry, that no sooner does a major world figure emerge than the Irish have him or her pegged down to their roots. Tony Blair’s grandparents were from Ballyshannon in County Donegal, and I will lay claim to a few more leading figures. Our lovely Chair today, Dame Siobhan McDonagh, has a proud Irish heritage. Two British Prime Ministers were born in Ireland: William Petty, the second Earl of Shelburne, and Arthur Wellesley, the first Duke of Wellington. Denis Healey and Jim Callaghan were both of Irish origin. The late, great Tony Lloyd and countless parliamentarians across the House have laid claim to Irish heritage, and—who knew this?—Margaret Thatcher’s great-grandmother hailed from Bonane in County Kerry.
Also in the world of politics, I was reading in Jacobin magazine that, interestingly, a disproportionate number of Britain’s trade union leaders are the sons and daughters of Irish immigrants. They include Mick Lynch of the RMT, his deputy Eddie Dempsey, Mick Whelan, general secretary of ASLEF, Sharon Graham, general secretary of Unite, and Baroness Frances O’Grady, former general secretary of the TUC. Additionally, Christina McAnea, general secretary of Unison, is the daughter of Irish immigrants to Glasgow, and Jo Grady, general secretary of the University and College Union, is the granddaughter of Irish immigrants.
The impact of the Irish diaspora on science and civil service is profound. Some of the recent winners of the Irish Government’s presidential distinguished service awards for the Irish abroad include Dr Patricia Mary Lewis, the research director for international security at Chatham House, Jocelyn Bell Burnell, the astrophysicist whose work won the Nobel prize, and Professor Teresa Lambe, one of the co-creators of the AstraZeneca vaccine. They are all from Irish backgrounds, and so too is Dr Susan Hopkins, who we saw on our TV screens during the pandemic as the chief medical adviser at the UK Health Security Agency.
In the arts we have a list of inspirational people, too. There are too many of them to mention them all today, sadly, but they include Danny Boyle, Caroline Aherne, Dusty Springfield, Elvis Costello, Boy George, the Beatles, Kate Bush, David Bowie, Cilla Black, the Sex Pistols, the Smiths, Oasis, Robbie Williams, Ed Sheeran, the Pogues, the Spice Girls, the Stone Roses, Happy Mondays, Primal Scream and Radiohead—the list is quite simply endless.
The success and impact of the diaspora on every aspect of life in the UK is profound. All that aside, it is the everyday actions of my community and communities across the UK that I am so proud of—all the achievements that the Irish and Irish diaspora have had here in the UK, and the ever-strengthening connections between Ireland and UK that are being built.
We have huge numbers of brilliant and dedicated Irish-diaspora politicians and councillors across the UK who are transforming lives within their communities. We have amazing businesses and charitable and social organisations such as Irish in Britain, Irish Community Care, Irish Heritage and the Irish World Heritage Centre in Manchester. We have Irish societies and clubs right across the UK, sports clubs, radio stations, dance and music groups, festivals and even welfare advice services. Special mention goes to The Irish Post and The Irish World, which have been keeping the Irish community in Britain connected for decades.
To everybody watching this debate, whether you are first, second or third-generation Irish or a friend of the Irish community: thank you for what you have done and for what you continue to do. As the former Irish President Higgins has said:
“The closeness and warmth that we laud today was founded to a large extent upon the lives and sacrifices of generations of Irish emigrants who settled in this country—generations of Irish people who came here and contributed so positively to nearly every aspect of British society, who did so much to make Britain what it is today while at the same time fostering understanding, tolerance and cooperation between our two countries.”
That bond goes from strength to strength today, thanks to those who continue to ensure that it endures. On Sunday, wherever you are and whoever you are celebrating with: Lá fhéile Pádraig sona daoibh—happy St Patrick’s day.
Several hon. Members rose—
Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. This may be redundant, but I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I think that this is probably the first time that I have served under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain; it is an absolute honour to do so. I pay tribute to my co-sponsor, the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), for her excellent opening speech and for setting out so eloquently the contribution of the Irish community in her community and in the wider United Kingdom. She is such an advocate for the Irish community in the UK.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate on 14 March, the closest we could get to St Patrick’s day. When we applied to the Backbench Business Committee, we said that we were keen to have the debate as close to St Patrick’s day as possible. That has meant that we could not be in the Chamber, for obvious reasons—it is estimates day—but we have a full three-hour debate, and we have the chance to talk, as close to St Patrick’s day as possible, about our views and our love for the Irish diaspora and all things Irish in our communities.
I confess that I fail the family test, because I am a Mancunian Howarth. The Howarths do not seem to have a great deal of Irish heritage in us; we tend to just be from Manchester. I can pick out lots of bits of Manchester that I have heritage from, but I cannot pick out anywhere in Ireland. I can claim a marriage link, however, because the Bradleys, who I married into, were originally the Bradleys of County Tyrone. I am proud that my children have that Irish link, even though I do not, and that they can proudly say they have Irish heritage. Irish heritage matters: people value being able to identify with Ireland and the Irish community. My mother told me that when she was growing up in Manchester, the Irish community played an important role in Gorton, where she lived. Her father worked in construction, and he knew many Irish colleagues.
The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles mentioned the football clubs. I confess that I support the team that has had fewer Irish players in its history, City, but United has always had a significant number of Irish players and a very big Irish support contingent. Getting a plane from Dublin or Belfast to Manchester on the day of a United match is nigh-on impossible.
My links to Ireland were really cemented when I was appointed Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—SoSNI, as they say in the Northern Ireland Office. I will not pretend that it was not a shock. The late, great James Brokenshire had been doing the role, and he had done a really excellent job. I do not think it is possible to find anyone who would ever say that James Brokenshire ever did anything that was not utterly brilliant, and he was brilliant at that job, but he had just been diagnosed with lung cancer, and for his health and his family’s sake he needed to step away from the role.
At that point, I was Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. I walked into the Department in the morning planning what we were going to do for the rest of the year. It was the first day back—it was actually James’s 50th birthday, so I had been wishing him a happy birthday, and then the news came through that he was resigning and we did not know why. It suddenly dawned on me that someone was going to have to go to Northern Ireland. It never occurred to me that I would be given that role, but the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), invited me into the Cabinet room and—because I had been a Whip and, more importantly, had served with her in the Home Office and understood the sensitivities around the security issues—asked me if I would take on the role. It was a shock to the system, but I have to say that it was the greatest honour.
Serving in the Northern Ireland Office, as the Minister knows, is truly one of the greatest honours that one can have in this place, because of the warmth of welcome and the depth of hope and expectation that are put on the politician. There are very few roles that have that as much as Secretary of State or Minister of State for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is a place where politics genuinely changed lives. There are very few places where politics and politicians managed to do something as incredible as the Belfast/Good Friday agreement 26 years ago, which got the weapons laid down and ended the violence.
We all agree that there are still many problems, and some people who have never accepted the peaceful solution to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, but the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, Ireland and the United Kingdom accepted that that political settlement and the compromises involved in it were worth making because of the change that could happen. The two architects—the late Lord Trimble and John Hume—should be admired for their ability to put aside sectarian differences, come together and show true leadership to solve what had seemed an intractable problem. I wish there were more leaders like them around the world who could do the same thing and make that difference.
The other person I want to mention from my time in the Northern Ireland Office is Tony Lloyd, my shadow. He was a wonderful person to have shadowing me. We would occasionally have ding-dongs across the Dispatch Box; that is what politics is about, but I can assure everybody that when we got behind closed doors we got on like a house on fire. We supported different football teams—again, that Manchester difference—but we always had great conversations. If we were in Belfast at the same time and we could make it work, we would make a point of getting together with the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth)—I will call her my hon. Friend —who was part of his team too.
We had great conversations. We wanted the same thing: we wanted the restoration of devolved government, and we wanted to work together to achieve it. We had different ways in, and different people we could influence, but we were all trying to get to the same thing. I am so relieved that we currently have devolved government in Northern Ireland, because it is vital for the people of Northern Ireland that they are properly represented by the people they elect to do so.
My constituency does not have a large Irish diaspora, but it has two great Irish employers. Advanced Proteins owns a plant that does animal rendering—it is not a terribly attractive thing to do, but it does it very well. The Irish dairy company Ornua, which brings Irish cheese and butter across the Irish sea to Leek in Staffordshire, also has a plant; Kerrygold is packaged in Leek, and all the cheese from Ireland is processed, grated, put into blocks and sold to consumers across Great Britain. I have a great need for the Irish to be successful, because they employ so many of my constituents. It is incredibly important that Ornua and Advanced Proteins know that we welcome them in the United Kingdom and we want them to continue to invest.
I have the great honour of being co-chair of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who did a fantastic job for so many years—he has been missed at our meetings. For those who do not know, the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly began with the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Back in the early 1990s, there was a recognition that we had inter-parliamentary groups and there were conversations at Government level, but conversations at parliamentarian level are incredibly important in allowing people to recognise that we all face the same problems and all want the same solutions.
Before what was the British-Irish parliamentary group, there may have been a lack of trust and understanding and a lack of ability to empathise with parliamentarians on the other side of the Irish sea. The two Inter-Parliamentary Union groups—the British one, which I am honoured to chair in our Parliament, and the one from the Oireachtas—were therefore asked if they could form a grouping of parliamentarians to find a way to open up that dialogue. That was six years before the Belfast/Good Friday agreement; it was a very important part of the dialogue that created an atmosphere in which the agreement could happen.
I pay tribute to the late Lord Temple-Morris, who was one of the people who led the initiative from Westminster, and to Dick Spring from the Oireachtas. We were honoured that at a recent assembly Dick was able to address our dinner: it was lovely to hear from somebody who had not only been an architect of the agreement, but been there beforehand laying the groundwork for it.
I also pay tribute to the wonderful Amanda Healy, who has been the administrator of BIPA for 30 years. Without Amanda, the whole thing would collapse. She is utterly amazing. It would be wrong of me to say anything other than that she is absolutely fantastic—thank you, Amanda. I also thank the brilliant clerk, Martyn Atkins, who makes sure that I know what I am saying as co-chair, keeps me on track and ensures that I entirely deliver the message that needs to be delivered.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her kind remarks. I was proud to be the co-chair of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly from 2016 to 2022. I commend her work, and the work of BIPA over so many years in promoting relations between not just Britain and Ireland, but the devolved legislatures of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. Sunday is an important day for me because it is my birthday on St Patrick’s Day. My great- grandparents were Dempseys and O’Learys.
If my right. hon Friend will indulge me for a moment, I would like to pay tribute to the schools and churches in my constituency—St Mary’s Roman Catholic Church and St Mary’s Roman Catholic Primary School in Hornchurch, St Peter’s Catholic School and St Edward’s Roman Catholic Church in Romford, St Patrick’s Catholic Primary School in Collier Row and Corpus Christi. I also pay tribute to the Iona club, which is somewhere people of Irish ancestry can go to socialise and meet people in the local community. I am proud of my Irish links and the Irish connections within Romford. I look forward to continuing to work with my right hon. Friend and all Members of the House to ensure that we promote strong British-Irish relations going forward.
Dame Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to all the schools and churches that help to promote the Irish identity in his constituency. I also thank him for his work on BIPA, which he was so devoted and dedicated to for so many years.
When the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body was in place, it was just the Oireachtas and Westminster, and then the ’98 agreement happened. The agreement itself envisaged a body to shadow the new British-Irish Council, perhaps along the lines of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. The body took the hint, and by 2005 it had become the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly and, as my hon. Friend said, was not just the Oireachtas and Westminster. It was expanded to include all the legislatures in the British Isles—all the devolved Parliaments and the Parliaments in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man—exactly mirroring the British-Irish Council. I must say to the Minister that we would be delighted if BIPA could have more of a role in scrutinising the British-Irish Council, because we feel that we would be the perfect body, able to discuss what the BIC is debating and bring a parliamentary aspect to that work.
One thing that BIPA has been able to do, unlike any other body, is give a voice to the Members of the Legislative Assembly who have been members during the times we have not had a Government in Stormont. Because of the way it is constituted and the history, members of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly remain members even if their Parliament is not sitting. That has meant that MLAs have had a voice on BIPA throughout all the periods when the Stormont Assembly has been suspended. I pay tribute to Steve Aiken, who serves on the steering committee. He is now the Deputy Speaker in Stormont, but he has been able to attend every one of our assemblies and steering committees, despite the fact that Stormont was not sitting. He and other MLAs have been able to bring the voice of Northern Ireland to the debate, which is incredibly important.
I want to quickly touch on a plenary that we held in March 2023 to mark the 25th anniversary of the 1998 agreement. It was just before St Patrick’s day because, as everybody knows, if any event is going to happen around St Patrick’s day, we can forget anybody from Ireland being there because they will all be enjoying the celebrations in Washington, Dublin, London, Chicago, Boston or all the other places that put on the most magnificent St Patrick’s day events. We had a wonderful meeting, and with the kind permission of the then Speaker, Alex Maskey, we were able to use the Stormont Assembly Chamber. It was very special because it was using a building that had not been used for many months at that point.
We were grateful to be addressed by Bertie Ahern, who was the Taoiseach at the time of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, Sir John Holmes, who had been principal private secretary to John Major and Tony Blair, and Kate Fearon, Bronagh Hinds, Dr Avila Kilmurray and Jane Morrice, who were all members of the Women’s Coalition. That was an incredible session, because the voice of the women who had been instrumental in bringing about the agreement was so powerful and resonated with everyone who was there. Finally, Jonny Byrne from Ulster University reflected on the achievements of policing under the agreement, and the work still left to do.
In BIPA we discuss policy issues. We discuss those areas that are relevant to all of us, such as housing, tourism, sovereign matters, defence and energy provision. Reports are issued by our committees on a regular basis, which are in-depth and technical policy discussions. They are well worth reading because they touch on many aspects of our shared policy concerns, and make suggestions and recommendations for how things can be different.
I commend the work of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. It is a fantastic body. I have been honoured to co-chair it for the last 18 months or so. I am looking forward to our next plenary in Wicklow, which is coming up in a few weeks’ time, just after Easter. I finish by wishing everybody a happy St Patrick’s day. It is always a great opportunity to enjoy oneself; the Irish give us a real chance to have such fun with our friends.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Go raibh maith agat, Cathaoirleach. Seo seachtain Lá Fhéile Pádraig agus fosta Seachtain na Gaeilge, coicís go deimhin, agus tá imeachtái ar fud an tír, agus ar fud an domhain a thugann faillí dúinn cultúr, teanga agus oidhreacht na hÉireann a cheiliúradh. Maith sibh, gach baill as an chúpla focal a úsáid. As well as being St Patrick’s week, it is Seachtain na Gaeilge, an opportunity everywhere to use the Irish language, and to celebrate Irish language and culture. Well done to all the Members who have used their Focail Gaeilge in the Chamber today.
It is a pleasure to follow Members from across the House who have done so much to honour and deepen the contribution of the Irish to Britain. They have represented the Irish in Britain for years with inclusivity, confidence and brilliant stories. I am proudly a Belfast woman and a Belfast MP, but I am a native of Galway. I was born there, so next time I am down I will look for the ancestors of the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey).
It was not always an easy landing for people who arrived in Britain from Ireland, including my own parents, who came to this city in their younger years. Many faced isolation and discrimination when they got here, but many also found refuge, acceptance and opportunities that they had not found in Ireland. It is a fact that, to our shame in many cases, Ireland pushed people out because they were pregnant, because they were gay, because there was no work for them or because they otherwise did not fit. Many of those unwanted people found opportunities and acceptance here—they often found social democracy here—and for that we are grateful.
Those people found a good home, but they have also done so much to make it a good home for many other people. Across all classes of work, vocation and talent, Irish people are succeeding in construction, as has been traditional, but also in sectors as diverse as the health service, the arts and sports. So successful are they that many times commentators in the media claim them as British. However, I am happy to confirm that Cillian Murphy is definitively ours this week after his Oscar win. We are many things, but the island of Ireland is a global cultural superpower, and we are very happy to share that—although we are a bit possessive of it as well.
The Irish in Britain, and the Irish-British relationship, are also a critical part of the ethos of the Good Friday agreement. Nurturing that strand 3 architecture is a really important part of our role here in Westminster, and something that we take very seriously. It is not a secret that my party and I aspire to a new agreed and reconciled Ireland. Through our New Ireland Commission we have published a set of six principles that we hope will guide that conversation over the years and decades to come. Those principles are around reconciliation and empathy, embracing diversity, and being outward-looking, hopeful and honest. The deep integration of Irish people here, and the way they cherish and entwine their Irish and their British identity, is a model, and a level of maturity, that Irish nationalism should aspire to and emulate. The Northern Irish in particular are moving on from traditional binaries and embracing the “or both” provisions of the Good Friday agreement. They feel that they do not have to choose between their Irishness and their Britishness, and I say more power to their elbow for that.
The violent years before the Good Friday agreement did drive a wedge between people in communities in Northern Ireland, obviously, but here as well and between Britain and Ireland. We are all still working hard to bridge that. But it is precisely because of those painful parts of our shared past that we really have to work to deepen and embed our friendship and neighbourliness and put that cycle of mistrust into the past. Wherever we may go in the years and decades to come, it is very clear that a confident, strong and pluralist Britain is in Ireland’s interests and vice versa.
We live in the shadow and the shelter of each other. Michael D. Higgins has rightly been quoted this afternoon. He said that through our improved relationship as equals and friends, the Irish and British can
“embrace the best versions of each other”.
The Irish in Britain do that every day, and I am really pleased to pay tribute to them, particularly because of the turbulence of the past. Go raibh maith agat, agus lá fhéile Pádraig sona daoibh go léir. Thank you, and happy St Patrick’s day everybody.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
I have not actually prepared a speech; I was just assuming that I would be the only Irish accent in today’s debate, but then the good hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) chipped in. I cannot do any Irish except for: conas atá tú?
Mark Logan
I could do Ulster Scots, but—[Interruption.] Same thing! I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Minister here. A year ago I tried to put him on the spot by asking him to speak a bit of Ulster Scots, and he went a bit red during that APPG event on Northern Ireland. I also asked his very good civil servants—not to put them on the spot—who the most famous Irish people in Britain right now are. I was thinking of people from the past, like Terry Wogan, Graham Norton, or Dara Ó Briain, but they said two or three names that I had never heard of before, so I must be getting old—they were for the younger, more fashionable people these days. It is obvious that the contribution the Irish have made to Great Britain has been absolutely massive.
Andrew Rosindell
My hon. Friend mentioned the incredible contribution that Irish people have made to Great Britain and the United Kingdom and all of the islands that we share. Would he agree that the Irish people have contributed an enormous amount of support to the Commonwealth? The Irish ancestry is all around the Commonwealth. St Patrick’s day, which we celebrate, will also be celebrated on Sunday in Montserrat—a British overseas territory—as he is their patron saint. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be wonderful to see Ireland become the next member of the Commonwealth of Nations?
Mark Logan
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. Indeed, he has been hiding his Irish ancestry over the last four-and-a-half years; I had no idea that there were Dempseys in the family going back. I know he is very passionate when it comes to the issue of the Commonwealth, but I might get slippery shoulders on this and divert that question to the Minister, if he fancies taking it up, although it is an incredibly interesting idea.
We can see the Irish influence across the whole of these islands, the Commonwealth and the world. We see it especially when it comes to the United States, with the number of US presidents who have Irish or Ulster Scots heritage. I think of my own neck of the woods in north Antrim. I was born in the townland of Moneydollog, halfway between Ahoghill and Cullybackey. President Chester A. Arthur was the first “birther” President—that is, people at the time did not think he was born in the United States. His parents were both born approximately three fields across from where I grew up. Then there were other presidents, such as Andrew Jackson and Buchanan from over in the Donegal direction. The impact and influence have been massive.
I was also drawn to what the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), said. I am not sure about the impact of the Irish diaspora in her constituency, but Irish in Britain has a wonderful website where people can hover over every constituency in the UK and find out the number of Irish passport holders or those who identify as Irish. In my constituency of Bolton North East—next door to Salford and Eccles, give or take a constituency—there are roughly a thousand constituents with an Irish passport. One might not think that to be significant, but my majority is 378—that could make a big difference for me in the election, come November-time or later in the year. Obviously, I am not doing this for votes at the ballot box; that is not why we are here. Their contribution has been massive.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands mentioned the construction industry. There is a gentleman by the name of Dr John Kennedy who lives just outside Greater Manchester in Cheshire. He was born in Mayo.
When he told me this story, it felt a bit like “Angela’s Ashes”. He spoke about how he, one of his siblings and his mother travelled to the United States, but his sibling sadly passed away during that time of hardship. He said that when he returned to Mayo in the 1950s and 1960s, there were no jobs, so he had to make his way to London. When he got there, he had no skills but, on day one, he got up and said, “I’m going to work harder than every single person around me. I’m going to put my head down and make something of myself.”
He started off cleaning and, after a year or two, he set up his own cleaning company. It all snowballed, and he eventually ended up with a construction company that he sold around 20 years ago for roughly £100 million—give or take £20 million; I might be a bit off there, but it was a colossal sum. He was involved in the Good Friday/Belfast agreement in 1998, because his construction company produced a commemorative article for it. I pay testament to him and the hundreds of thousands of others who have contributed so much to British society. For full disclosure, I declare a financial interest: he gave me a couple of hundred pounds for my political campaign, either last year or the year before.
I thought it was interesting that the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) referred to the discrimination of the past. I was just reading through The Bolton News, which mentioned how, when a plague or disease of sorts hit the town of Bolton in the mid- 19th century, the Irish community were blamed for bringing it across. There was a lot of taboo and scare about the “other” at the time.
I came to my constituency to represent Bolton North East as MP in 2019, and I am very proud, as the Minister of State is, also to represent one of the largest Muslim communities—predominantly Gujarati Indian Muslims—of any Conservative MP in the country. To this day, nearly every time I go to my mosques in Bolton North East, they will tell me about how, when their fathers or grandfathers first came to this country, they felt a deep affinity with the Irish because they also suffered from those feelings of discrimination. During Ramadan, I pay tribute to that community in Bolton North East.
On UK-Ireland relations, a great point was made about how the Irish consulate in Manchester has opened up in the past three years and is serving the whole north of England. That is great to see, because the bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland hit many bumps during the Brexit years. It was a very difficult time, and there was a huge decrease in trust between the two sides. We saw that a couple of years ago at a British-Irish Association event in Oxford, where there was a real asymmetry—this is a call more to colleagues on this side of the Irish sea—in the understanding of one another. In the Republic of Ireland, everyone is very well schooled in who is in our Cabinet and what our policies are, but it is sometimes felt that, on this side, we could be doing a lot more homework on what is one of the closest nations, peoples and cultures to the United Kingdom on this planet.
I finish on that and by again thanking all the Irish-lovers—whoever loves the Irish people across the whole United Kingdom. Have a wonderful St Patrick’s day, from someone originally from Ballymena, where obviously the great St Patrick spent many a year. We had an argument in the all-party parliamentary group on Ireland and the Irish in Britain, because I said that he spent more time in Ballymena than any other part. A Welsh colleague said, “No, he was in Wales longer,” and someone said that he was in Downpatrick longer. However, I can assure hon. Members that he spent most of his life in Slemish, looking over the sea.
Andrew Rosindell
My hon. Friend mentioned Wales. It was wonderful to see the flag of Wales flying from the flagpoles in New Palace Yard, and Westminster Abbey will fly the flag of St Patrick this weekend for St Patrick’s day. I hope that my hon. Friend will urge the Minister to ensure that Government buildings fly the cross of St Patrick to represent all Irish people, north and south, on the day of their patron saint on 17 March.
Mark Logan
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I absolutely agree; what a great way to finish.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhan, in the fantastic debate that we have had so far. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) and the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) on securing it. There have been some excellent comments and speeches so far about the immeasurable impact of the Irish diaspora across the whole of the UK.
I will focus my remarks on the enormous contribution that our Irish diaspora has made to Luton over many decades. In fact, I said to my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles when I came in that I have been asked many times where I am from. I say, “Luton”, and people say, “But where are you really from?” I will come on to that a little later in my speech.
Luton has benefited immensely over the years from Irish immigration, post-world war two in particular, and the generations of settled Irish diaspora. The 2021 census found that 3% of Luton identifies as white Irish, which is more than three times the average for England and Wales. There has been a positive impact across all aspects of life in Luton, with, I might suggest, a “work hard, play hard” approach to life.
I reflect on the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles about many trade union leaders being of Irish descent. I pay tribute to the many local trade union representatives in Luton who are of Irish descent. Maybe that understanding of community and solidarity plays out in the work that they do as representatives. Growing up in Luton, I feel that I benefited immensely from having friends from the Irish diaspora, many of whom I met at Luton Sixth Form College, who joined from Cardinal Newman Catholic School. Their parents came over to England from Ireland to work, and to work hard, with many building roads and houses or working at Luton’s Vauxhall plant. Some met at the Galtymore and wanted to settle down and move out to Luton.
My friends from the second-generation Irish community also worked hard. Many were the first to go to university, and others became skilled tradesmen, electricians and carpenters running their own businesses. However, everyone worked hard, which led to everyone playing hard once the end of the week arrived and being up for the craic. I first experienced and learned what the craic was in the summer after my A-levels, during the Italia ’90 World cup, which was the first football World cup championships that Ireland reached. I watched Ireland play Italy in the quarter finals in the Painters Arms and, even though Ireland lost, the party carried on, including at the Mad Hatter nightclub, with Irish tricolours flying high, and singing and dancing into the small hours. Understanding the craic means that, even when we lose, we still have a party.
Although sport is just one of the cultural influences of the Irish diaspora in Luton, whether it was some of my friends playing football for St Josephs back in the day or the next generation of young women playing for the Claddagh Gaels Gaelic football team today in Luton, the musical influence of the Irish community in Luton has enriched our town immensely. In preparing this speech, I was reminded by my good friends Mick and Trish about their talents on the fiddle and piano accordion respectively as teenagers. However, they had to admit that they were not a patch on their younger sister Clare, who won the All-Ireland Championship for under-12s on the banjo and mandolin back in 1985.
Irish music and watching bands have been a staple of our cultural offering and nightlife in Luton. Back in the ’90s, we would be sure to go if Poison the Poteen was playing, and many more bands over the years, be it the Whiskey Preachers, Kell or, more recently, Missing the Ferry have had songs of humour and sorrow. It is a commentary of life, building on the storytelling of traditional Irish folk songs passed down the generations. Music and singing are not just confined to Sundays at Our Lady, the Holy Ghost, Sacred Heart or St Margaret’s; they are more often heard at many of our fantastic pubs with close links to our Irish community: O’Sheas, the Phoenix, the Sugar Loaf, the Globe, the Baillie, the Wheelies, the Painters, my friend Marie’s pub the Gardeners Call and, for some of us of a certain age, the long-ago Club Erin and Eddie’s Bar. They are a real focus of community and solidarity, and we still frequent them often now.
Where music and a pub are involved, there is usually a dance to be had. It is right that I celebrate the success of many Irish dancers and Irish dancing clubs in Luton, particularly Finbarr Conway and his academy of Irish dancing, which has produced many Irish dancing champions in Great Britain, as well as representatives who have made it to the world championships on a regular basis.
A key institution in Luton that must be celebrated in this debate is Luton Irish Forum. I particularly want to thank everyone there for its outstanding work on behalf of the Irish diaspora: Noah Lech, the chief executive, and Tom Scanlon, the chair, and of course the executive team, all the staff, and the regular volunteers, who do a brilliant job, as part of the charity, of promoting Irish identity, culture and heritage, and also improving the quality of life of the Irish community and all in Luton. That means supporting people in need, poverty or distress—particularly, but not exclusively, those of Irish descent—and working in partnership with Luton Council and other voluntary and community sector groups to support our Luton community.
Of course, Luton Irish Forum also advances education in Irish music, drama, arts and language. A key part of that is the annual Luton St Patrick’s festival, which is a leading part of Luton’s cultural calendar, whether people are Irish or not. It has brought Irish music, dance and drama to the streets and entertainment venues of Luton, and it has grown from strength to strength across the years. Given the way in which Luton celebrates, it was no coincidence that the previous Irish ambassador’s final engagement, in September 2022, was to attend the launch of “Paint the Town Green”, a documentary about the creation of Luton’s St Patrick’s day festival.
Just six or so months later, the incoming and now current ambassador came to Luton and was sure to visit Luton Irish Forum, where he said he received the best welcome he had ever had. I was there, and I would say it was the most rousing welcome, with the Emerald Pipe Band piping him in. The St Patrick’s festival is already under way, with many events taking place, and I cannot wait to join everyone on Sunday for the 25th Luton St Patrick’s parade.
Finally, we make much of St Patrick, but in Luton and through the Luton Irish Forum, we celebrate St Brigid. She is Ireland’s female patron saint and, for a number of years, Luton Irish Forum has hosted an annual afternoon tea and celebrated Irish women, such as those in sport and fashion. I particularly enjoyed last year’s event because it celebrated the achievements of Irish women in the NHS. As of June 2023, over 13,500 members of the NHS staff in England reported their nationality as Irish, including over 2,000 doctors and over 4,000 nurses. Luton’s St Brigid’s day event highlighted the stories of three women from our local Irish community: Betty Halfpenny and Roseanna Anderson, who came to the UK to be nurses, and Rosaleen Burke, a radiographer who worked at the Luton and Dunstable hospital for over 50 years.
To conclude, I want to say that Luton and our country have benefited enormously from our Irish community and the Irish diaspora. We are proud of all the work they have done to enrich and empower our community, and I am so proud that I am able to represent everybody as a Member of Parliament for Luton South. I cannot wait for the party on St Patrick’s Day on Sunday. Sláinte!
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to be here and to have you chairing this debate, Dame Siobhain. I compliment those who have brought the debate forward—I think it is important that we do this every year. It is a privilege to represent one of the largest and longest-established Irish communities in England, and indeed one of the most talented. From W. B. Yeats to the Pogues, Hammersmith has represented the best of not just literature and music, but many different forms of arts and science.
I want to talk a little about the Irish Cultural Centre in Hammersmith, which is rightly recognised as one of the centres of Irish culture in the UK. I pay tribute to the current team: William Foote, the director; Ros Scanlon, the artistic director; and Peter Power-Hynes, the chair of trustees. It is rather invidious to name people going back over the 30 years that the centre has existed, but I cannot not name the previous director, David O’Keefe, who sadly died tragically young in 2019; Ivan Gibbons, Hilda McCafferty, Mary Walker—people who have made the centre a lasting success—and, last but not least, Jim O’Hara, who for 13 years was the chair of trustees.
The centre runs a brilliant arts programme all year round, particularly in the weeks of St Patrick’s day and St Brigid’s day, and it includes not just music and theatre, but painting. Members should go to the centre if only to see the paintings illustrating the text of “Ulysses”, which are fantastic and a day out in themselves, in one of the best libraries of Irish books in the country. Just to prove that they do not just do administrative tasks, a couple of weeks ago I went to see Brian Friel’s fantastic play, “Lovers”, which some may be familiar with, and William, the director, starred, and Ros, the artistic director, directed.
A lot of what we do at the centre is home-grown. On Friday afternoons and evenings, there are music sessions. Anybody can come along with an instrument and join in—that is an open invitation to Members present, but it is surprisingly melodic and harmonious, so maybe they should check their level of ability. It is fantastic. Any member of the public can wander in and just sit for three or four hours every Friday and listen to some of the most beautiful Irish music.
These things do not happen by accident. My association goes back to when we first commissioned and built the Irish centre back in the early 1990s, when I was deputy leader of the council. It was principally the project of the then leader of the council, Iain Coleman, who was my predecessor as MP for Hammersmith and Fulham, and the councillor Sean Reddin. That was a time of austerity as well, but they found the site and the money, they put it together and they built the Irish centre. It was opened by the then Tánaiste, Dick Spring, and it was hugely successful.
Unfortunately, that centre did not survive—for political reasons I will not go into, the site was going to be sold—but a group of people who wanted it to survive came together. That included, in the end, the local authority, then led by Stephen Cowan, and Shepherd’s Bush Housing Association, led by Paul Doe. They bought the site, knocked down the existing centre and built an even better centre, which is there today, with about five floors of social housing on top of it. It is a real tribute to the community that that all came together in the way it did.
The key parties to that happening were the Irish embassy and the Irish Government, which, even during a time of great austerity, was able to find the resources to support it. I pay tribute to not just Martin Fraser, the current ambassador, but his predecessors, for everything they have done to support Irish culture and the Irish diaspora in the UK. They really understand the importance of that. They do not just pay lip service to it; they put in their money, resources and enthusiasm. I hope that will long continue. We have had the privilege of welcoming a number of Irish Prime Ministers, Deputy Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers, and I think we will again this week. I am indulging myself a little bit, Dame Siobhain, because the centre is a very important institution for not just the Irish community, but the whole community, and not just in Hammersmith, but in all of west London.
I will finish by touching on one other aspect. My seat is changing: if I am successful in the next election, I will keep Hammersmith but gain Chiswick. There are many links between Hammersmith and Chiswick, and one of them is Yeats. Anyone who has not done so should go on the Yeats walk, which begins in Hammersmith and takes you on a journey down the river and into Chiswick, because Yeats lived for a number of years in Bedford Park and composed some of his most famous works while he was living there. Chiswick Eyot is the model for “The Lake Isle of Innisfree”. That is my contention; I am not sure that everybody would agree, but that is certainly what we believe in west London.
Cahal Dallat, himself a very well-respected poet, has championed the cause of Yeats. We not only have the Yeats walk and a wonderful sculpture called “Enwrought Light”—people might recognise the literary reference there—in the grounds of St Michael’s church, but we have the Yeats app, so people can go round and visit all the sites that Yeats made famous as part of his life there. It is something that we treasure and a hugely important part of our culture. It is great that some of the greatest artists in the world have come and shared that with us in west London, but that is just so typical of the Irish diaspora, which has brought joy as well as talent across the world. That is what we should pay tribute to today.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Tapadh leat, a Cathaoirleach. I am delighted to participate in this debate, which was secured by the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), and I thank them for doing so. We were talking earlier about how we are seemingly in the pull-out of The Irish Post today. That will not do me any harm, I am sure the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) will think.
I am reminded of a story we heard the last time we had this debate, in the Chamber, which was secured by our friend, the late Member for Rochdale, whom we miss from this debate today. I was telling the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles and the Minister that we had the debate and that by the time I got home to tell my dad in Clydebank that we were in the Donegal News, because that debate made headlines in Donegal, my dad was sitting there with his wee dog Sandy—no longer of this world, may she rest in peace—and he folded out his newspaper and went, “Yeah, I know.” He was reading the Donegal News. Needless to say, that had arrived the day previous by the bus from Donegal town to Clydebank, so I was beat by that. I am delighted to participate in today’s debate.
I am mindful of when the Uachtarán na hÉireann addressed the Parliament of Scotland back in in 2016. The relationship between Ireland and Scotland is familial; it is ancient. He stated:
“The bonds of kinship and history between our peoples are woven thick, finding expression today in a deep affection and empathy between Irish and Scots wherever our paths cross. Ours is a friendship which I deeply value as I know you do. You might even say that, given our shared and complex history, it has often been difficult to say where ends and where begins, or the other way around.”
I totally agree.
Given that my name—Máirtín Seán Ó Dochartaigh-Aodha—is probably one of the longest in Parliament, it would be remiss of me not to stand up here and speak on behalf not only of my party but of my constituents who are part of the Irish diaspora. At the all-party parliamentary group annual general meeting the other day—I think the hon. Member for Bolton North East mentioned this—we were all arguing about our connections to St Patrick. If I can use the Westminster process to trump everybody, my early-day motion in 2018 was clear that St Patrick came from the village of Old Kilpatrick in West Dunbartonshire, which was an ancient Roman fort at the western fringes of the Antonine Wall. It had clear consensus from every party in the Chamber, even the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who sadly is not with us today.
As I say to the hon. Member often, I am a proud Ulsterman. My family’s deep roots are in County Donegal. Donegal, along with Cavan in the Republic, is part of the ancient province of Ulster. I have no shame in that. It is important for those of us of not only the traditional Ulster notion but the Scots Irish and the Ulster Scots to be very proud of that mixed, complex and, yes, sometimes difficult history. It can still be difficult to have a St Patrick’s day in parts of the United Kingdom. Being vocal about your Irish heritage is sometimes looked down on, and we have to challenge that, for a range of reasons, so that we can see beyond what has happened in the past. I think the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) talked about how these islands were looked at as somewhere more progressive, with social democracy. As I am openly a member of the LGBT community, I know what that is all about.
It was therefore great for many of us to see the Irish Republic specifically push forward with constitutional debates and referenda on the right to equal marriage—not same-sex but equal marriage. To see that was extraordinary. People like myself, from a very openly Irish Catholic background, thought that would never happen.
I will say a wee bit more about my historical links, which I mentioned previously, but I want to concentrate a wee bit on Donegal and Ulster specifically.
Dame Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman is making such important points about how progressive these islands have been. Of course, one of our shared histories is the fighting in world war one, particularly at the battle of the Somme. Does the hon. Member agree that the moment in 2016 when the Irish ambassador, joining other ambassadors and high commissioners, laid a wreath at the Cenotaph for the first time was a significant step forward in relations between the two countries?
Martin Docherty-Hughes
The right hon. Lady has stolen a bit of my thunder. I totally agree, and for a specific reason: the complexity of our relationships. I go back to my other family, in County Mayo, in the province of Connacht. My great uncle James, who was part of the King’s Regiment of Scotland, fell the week before the armistice was signed, whereas his brother was in the Irish Republican Army—two very different sides of a very complex constitutional history. I very much agree with the right hon. Lady. Also, I think either a senior Minister or the Taoiseach himself has for many years now laid a wreath in Enniskillen, which shows how far we have progressed.
I come back to the personal connection—I am trying to keep to time, Cathaoirleach. When I did a DNA check a couple of years ago, I said to my dad, “What do you want for Christmas? How about a DNA check?” He said, “Aye, all right. Why not?” Well, I wish I hadn’t. My dad has cousins in Beijing and Alaska—it is just extraordinary. I think he is technically related to 35,000 people across the planet, going back to fourth cousins. This guy in Letterkenny came over for the commemoration of the Clydebank blitz, which is this week; the Irish diaspora in Clydebank, my home town, played a huge part in the war effort and in rebuilding shipping after the second war.
The then Mayor of Letterkenny, Jimmy Kavanagh, who is a councillor in County Donegal, came to this extraordinary orchestral movement, which was commissioned for the 80th anniversary. Jimmy and I were talking about the fact that we are the same height, and that each of us is kind of familiar looking—I have to say that he has more hair than me—and we laughed that we could be related. He said, “Where is your dad’s family from?” I said, “My grandad’s from Stralongford, between Letterkenny and Convoy.” He said, “My mother’s a Docherty; that is where she is from.” Needless to say, having done the DNA check, it turns out that Jimmy Kavanagh is my dad’s second cousin; Jimmy’s mum, who sadly passed away at 101, is my dad’s full cousin. Extraordinary.
We lost connection with our Donegal family for very specific reasons. So many of them left because of poverty, as has been alluded to in this debate. Maybe I can be a critical friend here, in a sense. We have talked about the great hunger, but we need to be very clear about history. It impacted the province of Ulster specifically, and also the whole west of Ireland. The famine was the impact of a political decision: that is the reality. We have come so far to rectify that, so that the whole island of Ireland has now reached a population that exceeds that of 1845, which is a remarkable turnaround for a country—an island—that saw 1 million people die and 1 million leave.
I have to say, though, that I am still glad they came to Clydebank, and to places such as Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven, to work in places like John Brown’s shipyard or Denny’s of Dumbarton, or with Turkey red dye in the Vale of Leven. Those workers’ participation in that industrial revolution should be commemorated. That is why I am wearing my tie, which shows the Royal Mail ship the Queen Mary. They participated in its construction, and that had a negative impact, not only on them, but on all the workers around them, through conditions caused by asbestos, such as mesothelioma. Many of the Irish diaspora who came to Scotland suffered the infamous asbestos-related conditions. Today, we commemorate the 100th anniversary of the death of the first person to be diagnosed with asbestos-related conditions, Nellie Kershaw.
As I draw my thoughts to an end, I am mindful of the ordinary Irish people—not the well-known folk who have made names for themselves in the music industry, the arts or big business, but people such as Rita Dawson, a nun from the Religious Sisters of Charity, based on Clydebank in my constituency. She has been there for nearly 40 years and has led St Margaret of Scotland Hospice through thick and thin. She has been a leader of the palliative care community not just in Scotland, but across the whole of these islands. She is not only chief executive of that organisation, but has been a board member of St Joseph’s Hospice in Hackney and St Andrew’s Hospice in Lanarkshire.
I want to make special mention of Rita’s faith and commitment as an Irish woman who feels at home in my community and works across it, no matter who somebody is, what god they worship or which person they marry. Her leadership has ensured that palliative care and end-of-life support has been second to none—not only in West Dunbartonshire, but across the whole of Scotland.
I am also mindful that in Scotland Irish clubs seem to have fallen back. Perhaps that is because we know we are Irish or Scottish, and it really does not make any difference, so we have not needed them—although we used to have them. I remember the Ramelton Club in Linnvale, my home town; it is why I decided, with others such as Danny McCafferty, to create the first Dunbartonshire Irish trust to cover my constituency and the old county of Dunbartonshire. That would enable us to reconnect with that diversity and complexity, and celebrate St Patrick as he was.
St Patrick was not a Protestant or a Catholic; he was an old Celtic Christian who was forceful, and whose history is as complex as anybody else’s. His foundation of Iona Abbey had an impact that stretched beyond these islands. The modern Christian Church exists today because Patrick of the Province of Ulster and his missionaries maintained the fabric of civilisation in what some people call the dark ages. If it was not for people such as him, we would probably not be sitting here today. I am delighted, as an ancestor of Niall of the Nine Hostages, with all the complexity of that history, to be able to participate in this debate and speak on behalf of my colleagues from the Scottish National party.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
How pleasurable it is to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain, and how apposite it is that you are the Chair for this wonderful celebration of the Irish diaspora in the UK. Happy St Patrick’s day to everyone contributing and listening to the debate.
St Patrick was himself a traveller between these isles, like the people we are celebrating today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) and the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) for bringing forward this debate and giving us this opportunity. I thank the many Members who have turned out today and spoken so eloquently. They have demonstrated so much understanding of the vital Irish contribution to life in our constituencies and across the UK.
I echo the many tributes to Tony Lloyd. I sat with him in December for the last speech that he gave in this very Chamber. He sat in the chair just behind me. I think of him every time I am here, as I am sure everybody does.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles for celebrating the many achievements of the Irish diaspora in business, cultural, political, trade union and scientific life. She gave us a great list of Irish champions. She spoke about life in the second generation and about checking her identity all the time, which I absolutely understand, and she praised The Irish Post.
The right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands spoke of the honour of being Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I am also honoured to be a shadow Minister for Northern Ireland, and I receive a fantastically warm welcome every time I visit. She told us so much, and she championed the work of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly.
Dame Karen Bradley
I apologise for intervening on the hon. Lady and am grateful to her for giving way. I have just realised that I failed to mention in my speech my co-chair of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, Brendan Smith TD, or Teachta Dála, who is an absolute champion for the British-Irish relationship. It would be remiss of me to allow this debate to finish without putting his name on the record.
Fleur Anderson
I am glad that the right hon. Lady has been able to set the record straight. A lot of work by British parliamentarians with Irish politicians goes unnoticed by many people, so I am really glad to have had this opportunity to hear so much about the work of the assembly.
I thank the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) for speaking in Irish and acknowledging the painful parts of our shared past, as well as the strength of the shared lives that we have built together. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) for her celebration of the contribution of the Irish diaspora in Luton. She demonstrated an encyclopaedic knowledge of Luton clubs, making a special mention of the Irish dancers and the Luton Irish Forum.
[Mr Virendra Sharma in the Chair]
Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) praised the Irish Cultural Centre in Hammersmith, and highlighted all that the Irish embassy has done to contribute to the role of the Irish diaspora here, and to strengthen our communities living alongside each other.
The rugby last weekend really stretched good relations between England and Ireland to their limit, but I am glad that the Irish contribution to British life is being fully demonstrated at Cheltenham, even as we speak.
In the 2021 census, 362,000 people in England and Wales identified as Irish, either solely or in combination with a UK national identity; 299,500 people identified solely as Irish; and 324,000 people were born in the Republic of Ireland. However, those figures actually diminish the real numbers; as has been said, probably about 5 million people across the country have Irish family connections.
Our two countries share so much history, culture, ideas, politics and people. This story runs like a thread through these isles and the lives of so many families, including my own. My grandmother came from Templemoyle in Northern Ireland and I am married to a proud London Irishman. My father-in-law came to London from Sligo in 1962. He is a carpenter and a builder and has worked hard, as so many Irish people did; that has been alluded to already. My mother-in-law, Nora, came to Doncaster from Donegal, before moving to Glasgow, then London, as a nurse. She came over in 1959. They met at a dance in London and married in a double wedding, with Nora’s sister and her husband, at St Mary’s Church in Clapham.
My parents-in-law brought up their six children in south-west London and their contribution to my life, the life of their church, the life of their whole community and the life of our whole family is immeasurable. They have 20 grandchildren and one great-grandchild. It is their lives, and the lives of so many people like them, that we are celebrating today. They built a bright future, with a truly shared heritage; they are an immigration success story and I am very proud to be part of their London-Irish family.
I pay particular tribute to the Irish Centres across the country, which have been family, welfare support, a place to meet and make friends, to stay, to dance, to celebrate, to organise and just to feel at home. Many of them have closed, as was mentioned earlier. I give a special mention to the Plunkett club in Clapham South, but I also thank and celebrate several London Irish Centres: those in Wimbledon, Camden, Bexleyheath, Haringey, Lewisham and, as has been mentioned, Hammersmith. I thank and celebrate all those who run them and go to them, ensuring their success in our communities.
The Mayor of London has taken that process to the next level with his annual St Patrick’s day festival and parade, which deserves a special mention. It will be enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people this weekend—people proudly going out to be a little bit Irish for one day only, joining in the celebrations and watching or taking part in the parade. We are all happy and thankful to do that, which says a lot about how well the Irish diaspora is integrated within our country.
On her historic visit to Ireland in 2011, Queen Elizabeth II spoke powerfully about
“the ties of family, friendship and affection”,
which were
“the lifeblood of the partnership across these islands.”
How right she was! This tapestry contributes to our civic, cultural, political and social lives, and we would be immeasurably poorer without the strong influence of everything Irish.
However, our history has not always been a benign one. Our relationship over the centuries has seen terrible wrongs, which should be acknowledged, great violence and revolution. Nevertheless, that thread has remained in place and found new expression in recent years in ways that would have seemed unimaginable to us in the past. We have to pay tribute to everyone who has consciously built that peace over time.
Sadly, in recent years UK-Ireland relations have become strained, including over the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which the Government thankfully halted after the Windsor framework was signed; and now over the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. In Government, Labour will reset our relationship with our closest and most important neighbour. Ireland and the United Kingdom must get on for the sake of both its peoples and we in Labour will work hard toward that end.
I want to take this opportunity to reaffirm Labour’s support for the British Citizenship (Northern Ireland) Bill, tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), which would establish a separate stand-alone route to British citizenship for Irish nationals born after 1948 who have been resident in Northern Ireland, and hence the UK, for significant periods of time. Across our two countries we share a unique bond, and I believe the Bill honours that.
Lastly, I again want to thank everyone who has taken part in the debate and I wish everyone a very happy St Patrick’s day. I hope all hon. Members celebrate appropriately.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. Alas, not every debate in the House inspires the same spirit of collegiality and a shared celebration as this one. It is a sign of its quality and pleasure that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) has stayed in the Chamber to listen to the rest of it. I am grateful to her for chairing the earlier part.
It is a real joy for me to respond. I thank the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) for securing this timely debate to celebrate St Patrick’s day and the contribution of the Irish diaspora, which hon. Members have talked about so skilfully today. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) began her speech by talking about St Patrick being a traveller between these isles. As far as I am aware, that is my only connection to Ireland: I grew up in Cornwall and the Saints’ Way from Fowey to Padstow was—perhaps mythically—a route trodden by St Patrick. As a Celtic Christian myself, it gives me some pleasure to respond to this debate.
I had the pleasure of travelling to Northern Ireland for some years before my appointment to the Department, and since then I have been grateful for the opportunity to travel both to Northern Ireland and the Republic. As the hon. Member for Putney said, many people will get to be just a little bit Irish for one day only, and she is right that that speaks volumes for our integration. Like her, I have been made extremely welcome in Northern Ireland and in the Republic.
We are fortunate that we have robust and productive forums for co-operation and dialogue, which we attend alongside the Irish Government. Since being in post, I have attended three plenary sessions of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly in Cavan, Jersey and Kildare, and four meetings of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, as well as the annual British Irish Association conference. Those forums are critical to our formal friendship.
I turn to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands. She was right to pay tribute to our friend James Brokenshire—a great Northern Ireland Secretary. I also recognise what my right hon. Friend said: it is one of the greatest honours to be a Minister for the Northern Ireland Office and for Northern Ireland. I particularly recognise the welcome we are extended. She also mentioned the depth of hope and expectation placed on us. The whole debate and particularly that contribution remind us of the importance of politics and how each of us conducts it.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s work as co-chair of BIPA. She has made me very welcome—indeed, she made it clear that if I did not attend she would be making me very unwelcome, probably in the House. I also pay tribute to Brendan Smith, who has made me extremely welcome. I am grateful to him for that.
I have just realised that I unfortunately skipped past the response that I owe the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles. I really enjoyed listening to her speech and she was absolutely right to acknowledge the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) as a champion of our relationship with Ireland and she has also given me guidance along the way. The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles gave us a remarkable and magisterial survey of the immense contribution of the Irish diaspora to the UK. I hope she will not mind me saying that I was surprised and very pleased to hear my late Conservative association president, Sir William McAlpine, cited. She will understand that he, as the most Tory of Tories, would have been both honoured and slightly amused that the hon. Lady cited him. Of course, Tony Lloyd moved a similar motion in 2022. As we have heard today, he is much missed on both sides of the House, and no doubt on both sides of the Irish sea. I congratulate the hon. Lady on her wide-ranging, witty and touching speech, which I much enjoyed.
I will now turn to our new and, if I may say so, already reset relationship with Ireland. I am very grateful to the former Tánaiste, Simon Coveney, to the current Tánaiste, Micheál Martin, and to the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, for their continued efforts to improve, further and strengthen British-Irish relations over the last few years. The Secretary of State and I have put a great deal of effort into that relationship, which I believe has paid dividends. I will return to the issue of legacy, which I do not propose to elaborate on further today, but it is important that we make progress for the sake of all the people on the island of Ireland and, indeed, across Great Britain.
I am pleased that the bilateral relationship is strengthening, and I agree with Micheál Martin’s view that it is fundamental to both the United Kingdom and Ireland that we have a great relationship of equals, which we can carry forward in a spirit of family. To that end, I want to pay tribute to Mr Martin Fraser, the Irish ambassador to the UK. I do not think he would mind me saying that he is a very able statesman and diplomat, who I have enjoyed working with immensely. He is a man of great humour but also great sincerity. While we were in the process of resetting our relations through the Windsor framework, he argued in a speech that this was always a family dispute, and that we were always going to get through it and make up. I think he was right in that, and it is a theme I would like to elaborate.
I would like to say a very deep and heartfelt thank you very much indeed to Mr Martin Fraser for all that he has done, as well as making a number of us welcome at the embassy last night for a few halves of Guinness, which some of us are still recovering from. He is ably supported by the deputy head of mission, Orla McBreen, and I was grateful that she attended the earlier part of this debate. In the interests of Anglo-Irish relations, I ought not to repeat my claim that the stout produced by the Rebellion brewery in my constituency is better than Guinness, but it is possibly too late. I would certainly see that as a family disagreement that has been largely placed behind us, which I think is reflected in the spirit of the debate we have heard today.
The peoples of Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have a long and complex shared history, which has not always been easy, but we have realised that there is more we share than that which divides us. It is often said that the Irish never forget our shared history, and the English never remember. Alas, that is the case. I just want to put on record that I am very grateful to my friend, Éamon Ó Cuív, for his work in helping me to understand Irish history from the Irish perspective. He has been a great source of inspiration for the idea that this relationship could flourish in the future in a spirit of goodwill.
For many, the route taken from Ireland to the UK has been to seek work and opportunity, particularly in times of hardship. As an engineer myself, I am struck that many of our greatest civil engineering achievements are a standing monument to the efforts of so many Irish people who built this United Kingdom. The NHS is stronger for the contributions of many Irish nationals who serve here today and have done since its founding. The most recent statistics on this, in June 2023, showed that nearly 14,000 members of NHS staff were Irish, including doctors, nurses and support staff.
It is important to reflect on the great service and sacrifice of so many Irish people during the first world war, and like others I share the admiration for the laying of that wreath. Many have remarked that the post-war rebuilding and recovery of Britain would not have been possible without the efforts of Irish hands, and I am glad to pay tribute to the manifold contributions of the Irish diaspora as part of this debate.
I will now turn to the common travel area, which will be a great context for reflecting on the contributions we have heard from Members. The flow of people, energy and ideas between both islands continues unabated. Whether it is by inventing, leading or making, we continue to make one another richer in every sense of the word—economically, socially and culturally. That historic and close relationship has been enshrined in the common travel area arrangement, which has existed for over a century and is now also protected in statute. That special status enables citizens to live and work freely across both islands. The common travel area provides reciprocal rights to live, work, study and access health and welfare services. Those CTA protections reflect the unique nature of life on the island of Ireland.
The UK Government take seriously our commitments to protecting and upholding the common travel area. It is not hyperbole to say that the CTA is central to the UK and Ireland’s enduring social and cultural ties. In recognition of those close ties, I am delighted that the Government are supporting amendments to the British Citizenship (Northern Ireland) Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), which would make it easier for people from Ireland who are resident in the UK to become British citizens.
I very much enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna). She is an absolutely formidable parliamentarian, as I remember from her first days in this House. She mentioned isolation and discrimination. It is a sad fact remembering how people were treated in the past—I am grateful that things are now very different. She mentioned that Ireland is a global cultural superpower, and of course she is absolutely right. I hope people will not mind me saying that of course Northern Ireland is a crucial part of the overall island’s cultural record. She particularly talked about the importance of embracing “or both”. I have seen that at work. It is important that we should be comfortable in who we are and in our identity, whichever part of the UK we live in and whatever our identity may be. That brings me to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan).
My hon. Friend invited me to speak Ulster Scots, but I have to tell him that I am notorious for my poor language skills. Since I have established a reputation for being able to say Tánaiste—thank goodness I said it right that time—and Taoiseach, I do not think I should spoil my record my attempting any Irish today. I would be grateful if he would try to teach me some Ulster Scots later. He reminded me of when I went to the Discover Ulster-Scots Centre, where I met the CEO Ian Crozier— I do not think he would mind me saying this—and asked him, “What does being Ulster Scots mean to you?” After only the briefest pause, he said, “Everything,” and I could see the feeling that he had. For people like me—my parents were from Hampshire and I grew up in Cornwall, with no particular sense of it other than from growing up as a child in that place—it is important to recognise that for others, their identity is everything. We should ensure that we respect and embrace identity, and that, as the hon. Member for Belfast South said, we make it possible for people to be both/and.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) requested that we fly the flag of St Patrick over Government buildings. I will certainly consider that request, but I have to tell him that I have lost too many friends in Unionism already to risk losing any more.
The hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) paid tribute to the large diaspora in her constituency. She explained the craic, for which I am grateful to her; she said it means, “Even when you lose, you still have a party”—I wonder if she has been bugging my kitchen table. I will leave it to others to work out what I am getting at. She mentioned St Brigid, and I am grateful to her for prompting me to put on record my admiration for the female leadership that I have seen in Northern Ireland. There is an amazing range of truly inspirational female leaders right across all sections of Northern Ireland, from promoting social capital and reconciliation between communities through to the highest levels of business. It has been really humbling and inspiring to meet those ladies. It is right that we remember St Brigid too.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) mentioned the Irish Cultural Centre and reminded us that we can have a good day out to see the paintings illustrating “Ulysses”. Perhaps the Irish-Scots drum might be taken along by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North—
Mr Baker
I am so sorry; I do beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. I have a temporary Parliamentary Private Secretary, but he has become temporary in more than one way. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman unreservedly, but he made a very good and important speech, and I was grateful to hear it. I have often stood in Northern Ireland looking across to Donegal, and he reminds me that I should visit.
The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) made a point about familial and ancient ties, and of course he is absolutely right. If English MPs have a fault, although they may be few, it is that too rarely we consider the importance of all parts of this United Kingdom. These past few months and years have been a reminder that every MP in this House and this United Kingdom should pay close attention to all parts of the United Kingdom, and indeed should remember the history that we have together. The hon. Gentleman mentioned poverty, and I remember with great sadness, sorrow and regret the impact of the famine on Ireland. He reminded me that “what we do in life, echoes in eternity”, as someone once said in a movie. We may not be able to set right the injustices of the past, but his speech reminded me that we can certainly avoid perpetuating injustices today and into the future. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he set that out in his speech.
Economic ties between us have been elaborated on in the course of this debate. I just add that, in the four quarters to 2023, Ireland was the UK’s third largest export partner and the 10th largest source of imports. Beyond those statistics, those close economic ties are demonstrated by the contribution of Irish businesses to our economy, as pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands. She may not have mentioned Kerrygold, but I was expecting her to mention it—
Mr Baker
Did I miss it? She mentioned that Kerrygold is packaged in her constituency in Staffordshire, and another example is of course Guinness being packaged in Belfast and Runcorn. The impact of Irish people on UK public life has been profound, and I am very grateful that a number of Members set out how.
I was planning to mention two former British Prime Ministers, the Earl of Shelburne and the Duke of Wellington, but the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles beat me to it. I did have to check that those two Prime Ministers were not guilty of some crime against the Irish before I mentioned them, but I discovered that they were great champions of Catholic Emancipation—so for that I am very grateful. I also add the name of Edmund Burke, somebody from whom many of us have learned a great deal.
I also want to touch on the peace process. The anniversary of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement was a great thing to witness, and one of the things that it revealed was the immense good will for the island of Ireland, particularly Northern Ireland, from right across the world. People have invested a vast amount of their lives and careers into ensuring that Northern Ireland is peaceful and that the prospect of reconciliation can be held out.
I pay tribute to some individuals whom I have been privileged to meet in the course of the anniversary and some whom alas I could not. I want to refer to the relationship between Garrett FitzGerald and Margaret Thatcher leading to the Anglo-Irish agreement in 1985; the relationship between John Major and Albert Reynolds; and the robust collegiality between Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair, whose stalwart work secured the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I want to mark the enormous contributions of the Irish Presidents Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese, who demonstrated valiant leadership during some of the darkest days when it seemed like the peace process might never come to pass. The UK Government are firmly committed to upholding and promoting the established structures created by the agreement to support the prosperity of the Irish people who want to strengthen their identity and culture as part of the wider family of nations that make up the UK.
Furthermore, the robust health of the strand 3 institutions reflects the depth of commitment from both Governments to our roles as co-guarantors of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Far from being mere talking shops, these fora allow us, have allowed us, and will continue to allow us to have honest and constructive discussions, not only on the subjects on which our two Governments agree, but on those areas where we have disagreed, one of which was identified by the hon. Member for Belfast South. I am extremely grateful to all of the other UK Government Ministers who have come along to the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference; I know that that has been appreciated by the Government of Ireland.
For too long, of course, strand 3 stood alone as the only show in town, so I am delighted that, this time, as we approach St Patrick’s day, we can once again celebrate the full restoration of all three strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement through the North South Ministerial Council, through the upcoming meetings of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and the British-Irish Council, and, of course, the fully-functioning Assembly and Executive. I particularly want to pay tribute to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of the Executive for the inspirational leadership that they are providing to everyone in how they are coming together in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
Finally, I finish by reflecting that the familial relationship with Ireland is absolutely fundamental to the UK Government. It is so important to people across the UK. Many of us look forward to the annual St Patrick’s day celebrations, which showcase the contributions of Irish women and men. Some of those celebrations this year will include parades through the cities of Belfast, Cardiff, Glasgow, Liverpool and Leeds and, of course, at Trafalgar Square. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is looking forward to a hundred thousand welcomes in the US this week for the St Patrick’s day celebrations. It only remains for me to thank, as others have done, all those generations of Irish people who have contributed so much to help make this great country as great as it is, and to wish everyone here, and all those people looking forward to celebrating, a very happy St Patrick’s day.
Rebecca Long Bailey
Very briefly, I want to thank the Minister and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for their comments. This has been a collegiate and warm debate that highlights the best that Parliament can be. No matter our political affiliations, I think our Irish heritage, or our love of Irish heritage, brings us together in this House. Just to touch on the Minister thinking that it was hilarious that I had mentioned Lord McAlpine; he might be a Tory, but he’s our Tory, so he stays on the list!
Resolved,
That this House has considered St Patrick’s Day and the contribution of the Irish diaspora to the UK.
Written Statements
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Turkey Trade Negotiations
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
On Thursday 14 March 2024, the Department for Business and Trade launched negotiations for a new, upgraded free trade agreement with Turkey.
In line with our commitments to scrutiny and transparency, the Department for Business and Trade has published, and placed in the Library of both Houses, more information on these negotiations. This includes:
The United Kingdom’s strategic case for a UK-Turkey free trade agreement.
Our objectives for the negotiations.
A summary of the United Kingdom’s public consultation on trade with Turkey.
Scoping analysis, providing a preliminary economic assessment of the impact of the agreement.
The United Kingdom’s negotiating objectives for the upgraded agreement, published today, were informed by our call for input, which requested views from consumers, businesses and other interested stakeholders across the United Kingdom on their priorities for enhancing our existing trading relationship with Turkey.
These negotiations follow our signing of the UK-Turkey trade continuity agreement on 29 December 2020.
A new and enhanced trade agreement with Turkey is a key part of the United Kingdom’s strategy to secure advanced modern agreements with new international partners, and upgrade existing continuity agreements to better suit the UK economy.
The UK and Turkey are long-term strategic partners with deep economic links. Total trade in goods and services between the UK and Turkey was worth around £26 billion in 2022. Turkey is a dynamic economy with one of the fastest GDP growth rates among OECD members. An upgraded FTA with Turkey will aim to reduce and remove barriers in sectors of strategic importance to the UK such as services and digital trade, positioning British businesses advantageously for the opportunities of the future.
Our existing agreement, which forms the basis of our current trading relationship, is outdated and not designed for a digital age. While the existing agreement provides tariff-free access for 98.8% of UK goods exports by value to Turkey—based on 2021 figures—it contains only limited provision for the United Kingdom’s thriving services sector. We intend to change this by putting services at the heart of any new agreement, to benefit the UK economy. Upgrading our trade deal with Turkey will help to unlock a stronger, more advanced partnership. The new deal will play to our strengths, reflecting the realities of trading in the 21st century and allowing us to take advantage of future innovations.
Around 8,000 businesses from all parts of the United Kingdom exported goods to Turkey in 2022. Of those, 6,800 were small and medium-sized enterprises. The United Kingdom’s SMEs could be key winners from a new agreement with Turkey, as we seek to make it easier to do business and focus on trade barriers that may have deterred them from previously entering this exciting marketplace.
The Government are determined that any agreement must work for consumers, producers, investors and businesses alike. We remain committed to upholding our high environmental, labour, public health, food safety and animal welfare standards, alongside protecting the national health service. We will not negotiate a deal that undermines the UK’s points-based immigration system.
The Government will continue to update and engage with key stakeholders, including Parliament, the devolved Administrations and the Crown dependencies throughout our negotiations with Turkey.
[HCWS339]
Pillar Two: Addition of an Anti-abuse Rule
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
On 15 December 2023, the UK, and over 135 members of the OECD/G20 inclusive framework on base erosion and profit shifting, agreed the third set of administrative guidance on the global anti-base erosion model rules (pillar two), which was published on 18 December.
This guidance includes a technical reform to close off certain transaction-based tax avoidance mechanisms.
These avoidance transactions are being marketed to taxpayers internationally with the aim of allowing them to exploit the transitional country-by-country reporting safe harbour, which is a temporary simplification contained in the model rules. The guidance confirms that a constituent entity cannot qualify for the transitional CBC safe harbour as a result of entering into such transactions.
In particular, section 2 of the guidance inserts paragraphs 74.1 to 74.31 into the safe harbours and penalty relief OECD guidance document—published in December 2022—to provide further guidance on the application and operation of the CBC safe harbour, and makes certain other changes, including amendments to paragraph 22 of that document.
As with any such agreement, it is for the Government to choose whether and how to legislate for these provisions.
The Government intend to apply these provisions from 14 March 2024 to prevent a loss of UK tax and will legislate in a future Finance Bill. The Government will consult with interested stakeholders on how the provisions are legislated, with a view to ensuring the legislation operates as envisaged without any unintended outcomes.
The OECD guidance on this rule was published at https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/administrative-guidance-global-anti-base-erosion-rules-pillar-two-december-2023.pdf on pages 18 to 21.
[HCWS340]
Chinook Contract Update
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
I am pleased to be able to inform the House that I have now personally written to US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin informing him of my final decision to proceed with the first tranche of the Chinook capability sustainment programme. The programme will deliver a total of 14 extended range Chinook helicopters to the Department with delivery from 2027 and will enable us to cement our superiority in the skies and ability to respond at pace to situations across the globe. The UK is the only nation to be provided access to this class-leading heavy-lift helicopter capability outside of the US. The extended range variant of the latest Chinook model is specifically enhanced to conduct longer range special operations and contains more advanced technology than is needed on a standard Chinook.
I have carefully considered the case for investment, and detailed work has served to reassure me that the range of advanced capabilities offered by the programme are critical to remaining ahead of threats, such that we retain the ability to project force into the most dangerous of environments when called upon. The capabilities offered by H-47(ER) are unmatched and the programme offers real value for money in delivering national policy. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my predecessor for presenting the opportunity to review the programme. Sterling work with our allies and partners in the United States has helped reduce the costs associated with the programme by over £300 million so far, and the programme is now affordable to the Department. These collaborative efforts pave the way for future foreign military sales with the United States.
Our extensive negotiations with the United States have helped cement reforms in US foreign military sales acquisition for the UK, which has now successfully passed into law. These laws will increase the speed and predictability of military procurement from the US going forward, and will strengthen shared partnerships like AUKUS.
As I stated in my recent address at Lancaster House, our adversaries are mobilising. The extended range Chinook is one of a raft of next generation capabilities that will ensure the United Kingdom is able to defend its interests in this more dangerous world. Interoperable with our strongest allies, we will together ensure the continued success of our winning alliances.
Proceeding with the programme will also deliver estimated UK prosperity benefits of an additional £151 million for the period up to 2031 over those that the current fleet would generate. With eight percent of H-47(ER) aircraft production and in-service support being provided by UK industry, it will further support key skills in areas such as avionics and electric power. Leonardo Electronics UK provides complex components for the defensive aids suite; BAES Rochester delivers a cutting-edge flight control system; and several other UK-based companies provide a range of components used in the production of the H-47(ER), with many more involved in the production of the global Chinook fleet.
I have also instructed my officials to conduct a review into the balance between our heavy and medium-lift helicopter fleets to ensure that our vertical lift capabilities are optimised to meet our standing requirements, while offering the best possible value for money for the Department and the taxpayer.
The Chinook extended range announcement adds to the list of concrete milestones achieved in this Government’s tenure and our uncompromising approach to ensuring the future security and prosperity of our great nation.
[HCWS344]
Energy Efficiency Update
(1 month, 3 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)
Today, I am announcing updates on the boiler upgrade scheme and the clean heat market mechanism. I am also announcing that we are publishing the Government response to the improving boiler standards and efficiency consultation.
Boiler upgrade scheme
The BUS provides grants to encourage property owners to replace existing fossil fuel heating with more efficient, low carbon heating systems. On 23 October, we increased the grant levels for heat pumps to £7,500, making the BUS one of the most generous schemes of its kind in Europe. Since then, applications have risen sharply. October, November and January have been the highest three months for BUS applications, and December applications were up 49% on December 2022. The latest figures for January 2024 showed a 39% year-on-year increase on January 2023, showing that our approach is working. Up to the end of January 2024, 33,424 applications have been made to the scheme, and it has paid out 20,497 vouchers to properties across England and Wales, amounting to just over £113 million.
Today we are publishing our response to the consultation on proposed changes to the BUS. The response addresses changes proposed by stakeholders including the Environment and Climate Change Committee, aimed at broadening the pool of properties eligible for the Scheme. We will:
Remove the requirement for a property to have no outstanding energy performance certificate recommendations for loft and cavity wall insulation—although Government guidance remains that properties should be appropriately insulated. This will address concerns about forcing hard-pressed families to carry out insulation upgrades to be eligible for the scheme by instead empowering them to decide what is right for them.
Increase the capacity limit for shared ground loops from 45kW to 300kW. This will address concerns that the cost of groundworks for ground source heat pumps is a significant barrier to deployment. The change will spread the costs of ground infrastructure, making them a more affordable solution for consumers.
Expand the definition of biomass boilers eligible for the scheme to include those which have a cooking function, provided it is integrated and cannot be controlled separately to the heating function of the property. This will allow a wider range of biomass boiler models under the scheme, thereby widening consumer choice.
Introduce flexibility into the regulations to be able to vary the grant levels more quickly for specific types of property, in future, if needed in response to changing market conditions or future regulation.
Clean heat market mechanism
The Government remain fully committed to supporting the transition to low-carbon heating, including the aim for 600,000 heat pump installations a year by 2028. Today we are publishing an addendum to the Government’s response to the clean heat market mechanism consultation, which was published on 30 November 2023.
In line with our proportionate and pragmatic approach to net zero, we are committed to supporting families to make changes to their homes in a way that does not force them before they are ready or saddle them with unnecessary costs. That is why we increased the boiler upgrade scheme grant by 50%. Our plan is working, as the sustained increase in applications to the scheme shows.
We have recently seen unjustified price hikes for gas boilers by some manufacturers with considerable market power. These pricing decisions have called into question whether the home heating industry, which has four companies dominating 90% of the market, is working as well as it should and delivering the best outcome for consumers. We are calling for the Competition and Markets Authority to conduct a review of the home heating appliance market to understand whether any weakness in competition is contributing to prices being higher than they would be in a well-functioning market.
The Government have scrapped the implementation of the clean heat market mechanism until April 2025, adjusting the launch from 1 April 2024 to 1 April 2025. In doing so, the target levels for 2025-26—set at 6% of relevant boiler sales—and other aspects of the scheme’s design and implementation, would remain as set out in the Government’s November 2023 consultation response.
Improving boiler standards and efficiency consultation: Government response
The Government response to the improving boiler standards and efficiency consultation sets out updated proposals to improve gas boiler system efficiency which will reduce household energy bills. In addition, only if a decision is taken in 2026 that hydrogen will play a substantive role in heat decarbonisation will the Government move to require domestic gas boilers be hydrogen-ready and then only from 2030. The response also set out plans to enable the installation of high-quality, efficient hybrid heat pumps.
We plan to implement most proposals via an update to ecodesign and energy labelling regulations, which would apply in Great Britain. We intend to publish a consultation on draft legislation to give effect to these proposals in due course.
[HCWS341]
North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park: Development Consent Application
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
This statement concerns an application for development consent made under the Planning Act 2008 by North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Ltd for development consent for the construction and operation of a combined heat and power-enabled energy generating development, with an electrical output of up to 95 megawatts (MWe), incorporating carbon capture, associated district heat and private wire networks, hydrogen production, ash treatment, and other associated developments on land at Flixborough Industrial Estate, Scunthorpe.
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 North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park application is 15 March 2024.
I have decided to set a new deadline of no later than 10 May 2024 for deciding this application. This is to ensure there is sufficient time for the Department to conclude its assessment of the additional information that has been supplied through consultation.
The decision to set the new deadline for this application is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.
[HCWS337]
Modern Slavery Regulations
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
Today, I am pleased to announce that we will be continuing the Government’s goal of introducing robust regulations to ensure the eradication of modern slavery in NHS supply chains in England. This is in line with our Government’s world-leading ambition to tackle modern slavery. These regulations will support continued efforts to build an ethical and reliable UK health system.
The Department of Health and Social Care has pledged to put an end to modern slavery in NHS supply chains. As is set out in the National Health Service Act 2006, we will create regulations to eradicate the use in the health service of goods and services which are tainted by slavery and human trafficking. These regulations will place legal duties on public bodies to assess modern slavery risk in procurement and contract activities and take reasonable steps to address and, where possible, eliminate that risk.
My hon. Friend Lord Kamall committed to introducing these regulations within 12 to 18 months of the enactment of the Health and Care Act 2022. Since that commitment was made, a large amount of work has happened on both modern slavery and procurement policy both within the DHSC and the NHS, and across Government. The introduction of these regulations has therefore been delayed so that we can ensure they are fit for purpose and interact with the current legislation and updated policies.
The DHSC, supported by NHS England, delivered a review in December 2023 into the risk of modern slavery within NHS supply chains. The review showed a significant amount of commitment from our suppliers to tackling modern slavery in their supply chains, and made a recommendation to lay the regulations.
Other work has been ongoing to reform procurement rules in the UK. The Procurement Act 2023 will be enacted on 1 October 2024 and will set out the new laws the public sector is required to follow when a procurement is within the duties prescribed. The Procurement Act 2023 created specific means for debarment, including “professional misconduct” where a serious breach of ethical standards is found; our regulations will operate compatibly with this requirement. Further, in January 2024, the provider selection regime also came into force, which sets out procurement rules for the procurement of clinical services; the NHS is now implementing these new procurement regulations.
The developments to understand modern slavery risk in NHS supply chains and the introduction of new procurement laws are relevant to our modern slavery regulations. The regulations will introduce legal duties to assess modern slavery risk in supply chains and to take reasonable steps in a proportionate and relevant way when buying goods and services for the NHS. They will include duties requiring public bodies to first assess the extent of the modern slavery risk in relation to that procurement and then take reasonable steps to address and, where possible, eliminate that risk. Reasonable steps include:
ensure robust selection and award criteria is built into their tenders to respond to identified risks;
include specific contract terms to monitor and require mitigation where instances of modern slavery are discovered.
This spring, the Department will launch a public consultation to further support the development of the modern slavery regulations. It is with this consultation that we will publish our draft regulations for the first time. We will welcome the views and contributions of a wide range of stakeholders, including public bodies, suppliers, trade associations, interest groups and the public. Subject to the outcome of the consultation we intend to lay draft regulations before Parliament in due course.
Modern slavery has no place in our society, and the DHSC has a duty to eradicate the use of goods and services tainted by modern slavery in NHS supply chains. This is also a global effort—that is why we will be working collaboratively across Government to ensure that our work reflects these priorities and the duties of public bodies within our regulatory framework.
[HCWS343]
Immigration Rules Changes
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
My right hon Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules. As announced by the Prime Minister and Home Secretary on 4 December 2023, changes are being made to curb immigration abuse and reduce net migration. The changes will mean around 300,000 people who came to the UK last year would now not be able to come. Migration is far too high, which is why we are introducing a package of measures which will deliver the biggest ever cut to migration over the course of this year.
These changes, including the increase to the minimum income requirement (MIR) for those applying in the partner route, are supportive of the wider ambition for the UK to be a high wage, high productivity, high skill economy.
Changes to the skilled worker route
Our changes will ensure businesses invest in the resident workforce rather than over-relying on migration, while bringing salaries in line with the average full-time salary for eligible jobs.
Today the Government are laying the following measures as part of the net migration package announced on 4 December:
Sponsoring employers must pay skilled workers at least a general salary threshold or the going rate for the individual occupation, whichever is higher. The general salary threshold is being raised from £26,200 (based on 25th percentile UK earnings in eligible occupations) to £38,700 (based on median UK earnings in eligible occupations). Going rates are also being raised from the 25th percentile to the median. The new thresholds and going rates are based on the latest Office for National Statistics (ONS) pay data. Workers sponsored for health and care visas, or in occupations where going rates are set using national pay scales, are exempt from the new median salary requirements. Instead, a general threshold based on the 25th percentile continues to apply, and is being updated from £26,200 to £29,000, based on the latest ONS pay data.
The shortage occupation list is being removed and replaced by a new immigration salary list (ISL). The contents of the new list have been informed by a review carried out by the independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC). The MAC will carry out a full review of the list later in 2024. As with the previous list, included occupations have a 20% discount to the general salary threshold (to £30,960 or £23,200, depending on whether they would otherwise be subject to the £38,700 or £29,000 threshold), but the previous 20% discount to the going rate requirement is being removed.
These measures are on top of changes we have already implemented in March, when we removed the right of care workers and senior carers to bring dependants, and introduced a requirement that care providers in England can only sponsor migrant workers if they are undertaking activities regulated by the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
Changes to the minimum income requirement under the partner routes
We have also taken the first step to bring the financial requirement that must be met to sponsor a partner and child(ren) under the family rules into line with the new minimum general salary threshold for skilled workers of £38,700, with an initial increase to £29,000. This will no longer include an additional income requirement for children.
This increase ensures that families will make a net positive impact on the economy, as well as contributing to the Government target to lower net migration.
We have also brought the MIR for the HM armed forces partner route—which includes the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the Army, including the Brigade of Gurkhas and the Royal Air Force—into line with the HM armed forces salary minimum threshold, which is currently £23,496. This will similarly no longer include an additional income requirement for children.
Tethering the MIR for HM armed forces to their salary threshold takes into account the unique nature of their service, the armed forces covenant, and the critical need to recruit and retain HM armed forces personnel in order to maintain national security.
Other aspects of the MIR under both routes will remain unchanged, such as the various ways in which it can be met and the consideration of exceptional circumstances where it may not be met in certain cases. The rules also make transitional provisions for those already granted under the family or armed forces rules.
Changes relating to the EU settlement scheme (EUSS)
We are amending the relationship requirements under “Appendix Victim of Domestic Abuse” (VDA) to include all partners with pre-settled status under the EUSS.
The EUSS in “Appendix EU” enables EU, other European economic area (EEA) and Swiss citizens living in the UK by the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, and relevant family members, to obtain immigration status. “Appendix VDA” provides access to immediate settlement for victims of domestic abuse who meet its relationship requirements. They currently include, together with their dependent children, any partner sponsored under “Appendix FM” by an EEA or Swiss citizen with settled status or (based on their residence in the UK before the end of the transition period) pre-settled status under the EUSS.
The changes expand the scope of those immediate settlement provisions to include a spouse, civil partner, or durable partner with pre-settled status under the EUSS (meaning that the relationship was formed before the end of the transition period), and their dependent children. We will also include them within the scope of the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession (outside the immigration rules) so that they can obtain leave outside the rules with access to public funds pending the outcome of an application in the UK under “Appendix VDA”. This will ensure that partners of EEA and Swiss citizens with EUSS status are treated equally under these domestic abuse provisions, regardless of whether the relationship was formed before or after the end of the transition period.
A person granted immediate settlement under “Appendix VDA” will still be able to apply for settled status under the EUSS at the point at which they would otherwise have been eligible for it, based on their continuous residence in the UK. However, in line with article 18(1)(h) of the withdrawal agreement, the changes also require a person resident in the UK before the end of the transition period—where they seek to obtain settled status under the EUSS in place of indefinite leave to enter or remain granted to them under another route—to have held their existing indefinite leave at the end of the transition period.
Immigration salary list and asylum
We are replacing the shortage occupation list with a new immigration salary list. Eligible asylum seekers granted permission to work in the UK can currently only work in roles on the shortage occupation list. Given the shortage occupation list’s replacement with the immigration salary list, asylum seekers who are eligible and granted permission to work in the UK from 4 April will only be able to work in roles on the immigration salary list.
Changes to “Appendix AR: Administrative Review EU”
“Appendix AR: Administrative Review EU” has been redrafted and simplified in line with “Appendix AR: Administrative Review”. It has also been amended to remove the scope to apply out-of-time for administrative review of a relevant EUSS decision taken before 5 October 2023. Individuals will have had more than five months to apply out-of-time for administrative review, and they will continue to be able to apply to the first-tier tribunal to appeal out-of-time and the tribunal will consider that application on its merits. The scope to apply for administrative review of a relevant EUSS decision taken from 5 October 2023 was removed by HC 1780.
There are a number of other changes to the immigration rules, mainly of a minor or technical nature.
The changes to the immigration rules are being laid on 14 March 2024 and will come into effect on 4 April 2024.
[HCWS338]
Extremism Definition and Community Engagement
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
The terrorist attack in Israel on 7 October, its aftermath and the domestic implications have all sharpened our focus on the pressing need to enhance counter-extremism and community cohesion in the UK.
The ways in which extremist agendas are pursued have evolved since extremism was first defined by Government in 2011. The Government’s approach must evolve too. There is cause for serious concern about the growing influence of organisations such as the British National Socialist Movement and Patriotic Alternative who promote neo-Nazi ideology and argue for forced repatriation, a white ethno-state and the singling out of minority groups for intimidation. The targeting of both Muslim and Jewish communities and individuals by these groups is a profound concern, requiring concerted action.
Organisations such as the Muslim Association of Britain, the British affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, and other groups such as Cage and MEND give rise to concern for their Islamist orientation and views. These groups are divisive forces within Muslim communities and cause real harm to them.
Without prejudicing any formal process, these are the kind of organisations that we may assess to consider if they meet our definition of extremism and, if they do, we will take action as appropriate against them.
Islam is a great faith that is practised worldwide; a religion of peace that provides spiritual nourishment to millions, inspires countless acts of charity and celebrates the virtues of generosity, compassion and kindness. Islamism, however, is a political ideology that seeks to divide, calls for the establishment of a totalitarian state governed by sharia law and seeks to overthrow liberal democratic principles. We must be very conscious of conflating the experiences and motivations of the majority of British Muslims, who want to practice their faith peacefully and in line with British values, and Islamists, who seek to abuse religious values and traditions or subvert our society. Many Muslim scholars have made the distinction: Islam is not Islamism.
To tackle extremism head-on, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has worked with the Home Office, as well as other Government Departments and external agencies and practitioners, to update the 2011 definition of extremism based on a careful consideration of extremist threats to our liberal democracy, rights and freedoms. With this new definition, we will be assessing whether these, and other organisations, meet our definition and we will take action as appropriate.
However, this is not a new law, it does not create new criminal offences, and through this definition we have taken care to protect our democratic right of freedom of expression and belief, and not to curtail the civil liberties and rights of people in the UK.
It is important for Government to be clear and transparent over what extremism is and how it is recognised, so in due course we will also be publishing a framework to support frontline practitioners. This framework will be publicly available and kept up to date with the landscape of extremism.
Community engagement is a fundamental part of the work of many UK Government ministerial Departments. We are proud to engage with groups and individuals from across the country—from charities and community organisations to local people. Our external engagement can strengthen our democracy, our policymaking and our society.
We also know, however, through the independent review of Prevent, that if best practice is not followed, the UK Government’s engagement with communities and external groups can inadvertently provide a platform, funding or legitimacy for individuals, organisations or groups that oppose our shared values. This allows extremists, of all ideologies, to exert greater influence and be legitimised and publicly emboldened.
To ensure that we maximise the benefits of engagement and minimise the risks, we are publishing a new set of community engagement principles that central Government Departments will be expected to consider when undertaking external engagement or providing funding.
To support this work to tackle the threat of domestic extremism, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is setting up a new counter-extremism centre of excellence as a world-leading authority on best practice, data and research. The centre of excellence will provide leadership for Departments’ operationalisation and implementation of the new extremism definition, cross-Government standards and an extremism-related due diligence process. In time, it will also become home to new counter-extremism assessment and analytical functions and capabilities. The centre will work with the Commission for Countering Extremism to upskill officials and institutionalise counter-extremism literacy, plugging the gaps in HMG’s existing counter-extremism capability.
To protect our democratic values and improve social cohesion, it is important both to reinforce what we all have in common and to be clear in identifying the dangers posed by extremism. That is why we are proud to have provided additional funding for the Community Security Trust and Tell MAMA. Furthermore, we are establishing a new cohesion fund to provide additional support for grassroots organisations working to tackle these issues.
We recognise that tackling extremism and supporting community cohesion requires a holistic approach. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has been working with local authorities, civil society and faith groups—particularly in those areas where social cohesion is most under strain—to reduce tensions and explore the most constructive support that we can offer.
[HCWS342]
Grand Committee
Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill
Thursday 14th March 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill 2023-24 View all Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 39-I Marshalled list for Grand Committee - (12 Mar 2024)
Lord de Clifford
“Regulations about extension to list of relevant livestock(1) An appropriate national authority may by regulations extend the list of “relevant livestock” in section 1(4).(2) Appropriate national authority in relation to the power under subsection (1), means—(a) the Secretary of State;(b) the Scottish Ministers, so far as provision made by the regulations would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if contained in an Act of that Parliament;(c) the Welsh Ministers, so far as provision made by the regulations would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if contained in an Act of Senedd Cymru.(3) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(4) The Welsh Ministers may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, Senedd Cymru.(5) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow the appropriate national authority to extend, by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure, the list of livestock species which may not be exported for slaughter.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I have tabled this amendment with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, as an opportunity to improve the Bill and future-proof it for the benefit of all animals and animal welfare. This Bill is welcomed by all in the Committee, I believe, and we wish to see it on the statute book as soon as possible.
The basis of the Bill is to prevent the restart of the cruel and unnecessary trade in animal exports for slaughter and fattening. The Bill has identified in Clause 1(4) the relevant livestock. These animals have, without doubt, made up the majority of the trade and have suffered the most over many years. The Bill will have less impact on farming income and reduced opportunities than it would have done before Brexit, because this trade has almost stopped over the past few years. The Bill will stop the restarting of this trade and, in effect, is a safety net to stop the named animals having to go through this ordeal in future.
The question is why the Bill does not cover all animals. The Minister tried to address why other species have not been included in the Bill when summing up at the end of Second Reading, saying that two animal charities, Compassion in World Farming and the RSPCA, said that the Bill covered the relevant species to end this unnecessary trade. I noted that a similar amendment was tabled in the other place. In response to that proposed amendment, Compassion in World Farming said that it was not aware of any alpacas or deer being exported for slaughter. The RSPCA said that only sheep, calves and horses had been exported from Britain for slaughter in the past 10 years. If the RSPCA is correct in its comments, mature cattle have not been exported for slaughter and fattening over the past few years, but they have been included in the Bill. As I understand it, a possible trade in mature cattle was foreseen by Defra, and so, to act as a safety net, Defra included all cattle on the relevant livestock list so that the trade could not take place.
I believe that this amendment would only enhance the Bill, as it would act as a safety net for all animals in Great Britain not currently included in the Bill. I acknowledge and welcome the support for this legislation from the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for her suggestion at Second Reading that the Secretary of State should have the power via secondary legislation to extend the list of relevant livestock to the Bill in Clause 1(4), so that if an export trade for slaughter in alpacas, deer, rabbits or other species was to be developed in future, relatively speedy action could be taken to stop that new trade via statutory instrument after consultation with the farming and veterinary industry and animal welfare charities, so that certain animals would be prevented from enduring this unnecessary journey.
Surely one of the functions of government is not only to look at the past and create legislation to improve society, and in this case animal welfare, but to look to the future to ensure that any changes in society or opportunities that people create cannot inflict similar issues to the ones that have already been banned—in this case, the suffering and cruelty of the livestock not currently included in the Bill.
Can the Minister and his advisers in Defra explain to someone new to the legislation process what the barriers are, and the possible repercussions of not including other species on the relevant livestock list, and possibly to not accepting this amendment, that we noble Lords have not foreseen? I hope that the Government can find time to include this amendment and that it does not slow up the implementation of this important and welcome Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I warmly support this amendment and I doubt whether any remarks by my noble friend the Minister will convince me otherwise. I suspect the main reason that it is not in the Bill is that they have taken so long to bring it forward that they are now worried about any changes to it which might prevent the whole thing going through, for reasons I need not dwell on. But it is a serious mistake. No one can foresee what might be wanted for the export trade in the future. Therefore, this seems a sensible proviso against future problems. For that reason, I warmly support it.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, set out clearly his reasons for this amendment. At Second Reading, many noble Lords taking part in the debate raised the issue of increasing the number of species covered by this short Bill. Many also made the case for ensuring that the Bill got on the statute as quickly as possible, and certainly before the end of this Parliament.
Increasing the number of species covered by the Bill should be done through affirmative secondary legislation, rather than specified species being added to the Bill. Many issues could come along which might make it wise to add a different species to the Bill. I support the view that, in future, the Secretary of State should be able to make adjustments to match the circumstances at the time, and I believe that this amendment would allow that to happen.
At Second Reading, it was suggested that deer were added, among other animals. I would be reluctant to see deer added to the list unless there were exceptional circumstances to support this. Our country is currently overrun with deer, which are doing immense damage to our trees and woodlands, and in some cases domestic gardens. If we have a surfeit of deer here, we should deal with the problem ourselves, internally. Exporting the problem for others to deal with does not seem sensible or humane. I look forward to the Minister’s comments, but I generally support the aim of these two amendments.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for bringing forward Amendments 1 and 8. I was pleased to add my name to them. As he said, this was discussed at Second Reading and had a lot of support in the Chamber. We know that trends in the types and number of animals being exported can change quite a lot over time, so it is practical and sensible to ensure that the legislation can be kept up to date by revisiting the banned list in future. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, talked about the fact that changes can happen, and we need to be prepared for that.
It does not make any sense to me that if a future Government wanted to increase the list, they would have to go back to primary legislation. By putting it in the Bill, it can be done easily through affirmative secondary legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said. These amendments would allow that to happen. Taken together, we believe that Amendments 1 and 8 are a sensible measure that allows for future flexibility, and I hope that the Government will seriously consider adding it into the Bill. I cannot see why it is an unacceptable request.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, my noble friend Lady Fookes and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Hayman, for their interest in this Bill and for seeking to ensure that the ban on live exports for slaughter is comprehensive.
This is indeed an important question, which we carefully considered when developing this legislation. We consulted on the ban on live exports in 2020 and received over 11,000 responses. I reassure noble Lords that we received no evidence then, and have received none since, that a ban on any other species was necessary. The definition of “relevant livestock” covers all species for which there has been a significant slaughter export trade. In the 10 years prior to EU exit, the live export trade for slaughter and fattening mainly involved sheep and unweaned calves.
Several noble Lords noted in our earlier discussions that poultry is not within the scope of the Bill. We have had no exports of poultry for slaughter in recent years.
Noble Lords have also discussed this amendment in the context of alpacas, llamas and deer. The 2021 June agriculture census reported records of around 45,000 farmed deer, 12,000 alpacas and 1,000 llamas kept in the UK. These numbers are extremely low compared to the numbers of animals for which a significant slaughter export trade has existed in the past; for example, around 33 million sheep and 10 million cattle are kept in the UK.
Deer, llamas and alpacas are kept for a range of reasons, such as for venison and for alpaca fleece. We have no evidence of any of these species being exported for slaughter or fattening from Great Britain to the EU, nor, indeed, that there is any demand for a trade in live exports from the EU or elsewhere. As the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, pointed out, Compassion in World Farming, an organisation that has campaigned to ban live exports for 50 years, has said that it is
“not aware of any alpacas, llamas or deer being exported for slaughter”.
The RSPCA has also said that
“only sheep, calves and horses have been exported from Britain for slaughter in the last 10 years”.
I understand the noble Lord’s desire to ensure that the ban will apply to all relevant animals, both now and in future. However, when considering the data that we have on the past slaughter export trade, I firmly believe that the current definition of “relevant livestock” is already sufficiently comprehensive. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes, Lady Bakewell and Lady Hayman, for their support for my amendment and for seeing the practical side of why we should have this amendment in place. I also thank the Minister for his detailed response, as ever, although I am disappointed that I have been asked to withdraw my amendment; it is practical and would safeguard those other species for the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Review of impact on import of livestockWithin six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a review of the impact of this Act on—(a) the number of livestock imported into Great Britain from the EU for fattening or slaughter, and(b) the welfare standards of livestock imported into Great Britain for fattening or slaughter.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on moving his first amendment in Committee; it is very good for him to get that under his belt.
In moving Amendment 2, I am delighted to speak to Amendment 3, which is also in my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for lending her support to Amendment 2. These two amendments are grouped with Amendments 4 and 5 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey and Lady Bakewell; they are on similar themes, but I will leave them to speak to their own amendments.
I declare my interests at the outset. I chaired the EFRA Committee in the other place for five years and served as an MEP for 10 years. I am also an associate of the British Veterinary Association; I must stress that I do not always agree with its views, but I welcomed the briefing that it shared with me in advance of today.
As I indicated to my noble friend the Minister at Second Reading, I wish to press the Government into, I hope, reaching a reciprocal arrangement with EU member states on our exports; that was mentioned earlier in connection with Amendment 1. In effect, there is now no trade in live animal exports, so that ship has sailed, but I believe that it would be far better to proceed on the basis of reciprocity.
UK farmers are currently in an extremely unhappy, unequal and unfair situation. For example, at home, we have banned egg production through battery cages. Egg producers in this country were keen to comply with this, and, more specifically, British consumers were really agitating for this to be put in place. Yet we are now importing thousands of eggs a year that are produced across mainland Europe in battery cages. I note that the NFU reported that the UK granted temporary suspensions in May 2022, and—dare I say it?—that imports of Ukrainian poultry meat to the UK,
“direct and transhipped via the European Union, had increased by 90% in the first 11 months of 2023 compared to the same period in 2022”.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 4 but first I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her remarks. I very strongly support her amendment and the amendment that will be spoken to in a moment or two.
The only interest I have to declare is that I was born and reared on a small organic farm. It is so long ago that the word “organic” was not used and had not even been thought of, but it was an organic farm. I brought many little piglets into the world, being left to look after many sows in their own homes. They got out every day and had a lovely life, and I would very often accompany my favourite to the local abattoir —and it was local—so I am not speaking on this because I do not accept that animals have to be killed. In fact, I would not be here if my family had not been able to sell animals and so on, so I am very keen to see this from a real welfare point of view.
I tabled my amendment because I simply do not accept what is going to happen—we will talk about it later—with Northern Ireland being left out. That could be avoided, but if it cannot, then at the very least His Majesty’s Government need to look over a short period of time—I have said 12 months but it could be less—at the effects of the trade situation between Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the European Union. It is really important to point out that the trade at the moment, as many Members said at Second Reading, is going from Northern Ireland. Yes, of course a lot of it is staying in the Republic of Ireland, but we really have no idea just where the 17,000 pigs, 3,500 cattle and 337,000 sheep that crossed the border ended up. We now know that that will continue.
I thank the Minister, because he has engaged with me and written a very interesting letter, which I got yesterday, which explains again in great detail why Northern Ireland cannot be included. However, although the reality is that the animals that go from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will have to stay for a period of time before they can be moved on, what is happening to the animals already being moved that are in Northern Ireland and are going to go over? There is no idea whatever in Defra or DAERA, whichever is responsible, about where those animals will end up. Very often, they will end up, as the noble Baroness said, going down to the south of Ireland—a long journey—and then across to France, another long journey. Many of them will probably then go on to even worse conditions in north Africa.
I want this amendment to be put in. I genuinely cannot understand why the Minister cannot accept all three amendments. They seem perfectly sensible and perfectly common sense about how we look to the future when the Bill becomes an Act. Then we can say, “We are going to look at this and see what is happening”.
I have one final question for the Minister: how are we going to monitor this? Does he personally care about what is happening to those animals leaving Northern Ireland? How will the department monitor it, and how can we ensure that the welfare of those animals will be protected when we are washing our hands of part of the United Kingdom in this law as we put it through?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 5, which aims to support the farming community. At Second Reading, Members recorded that the NFU was not overwhelmingly in favour of the Bill. There were several reasons for this. First, there was concern about the importation of animals that were not raised to the same animal welfare standards as those which pertain in the UK. This argument has been raised many times since Brexit, particularly in relation to the various trade agreements the Government have entered into and are entering into with countries outside Europe. This is an extremely valid issue and although various Ministers have given reassurances from the Dispatch Box, they have not satisfied the farming community.
Secondly, there is the financial impact. Although I fully support the Bill’s aims, we cannot get away from the fact that the export of live animals for fattening and slaughter was a considerable part of some farmers’ income. The NFU estimates that, in 2022, the UK exported a total value of £751 million-worth of live animals. Farmers are concerned that imports of New Zealand and Australian lamb during the British peak season will reduce the domestic demand and price for their animals.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to support the various reviews set out in these amendments. I shall concentrate particularly on the first of these, on the import of livestock. It goes some way to deal with worries about lower welfare standards, but it asks only for a review. In other words, the Government could have the review and ignore it completely. One would hope that that would not happen, but I am a cynic, and unless something is written into the law I am not happy that anything will happen.
I would be interested to know from my noble friend the Minister what regulations there are, or what advice is given regarding the welfare of livestock imported from the continent. I have the impression that nothing happens at all. Perhaps he can confirm or deny that point.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh referred to the import of eggs raised under conditions that would be illegal here, but I am not sure whether they are regarded as livestock. I hope that they are, but I would like to hear from the Minister himself whether this is the case.
I support these amendments and the reviews, but I would like to see more teeth.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments ask pretty important wider questions about the Bill’s impact on imports, trade and farming. Some extremely good questions have been asked about how we can ensure, when we trade with other countries, that we receive imports that meet the high standards we set for our own farmers.
I turn first to the two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I was very pleased to add my name to Amendment 2. We need to look at reciprocal arrangements with the EU around imports. The noble Baroness gave a really good example of how farming standards are undermined by imports; she talked about eggs and pigmeat in particular, as well as the fact that, although battery cages are banned here, we can import from countries that still use them.
Poultry is not within the scope of the Bill. As for the livestock trade, I am not sure whether eggs would be included—meat is certainly not included, only livestock—so I am not sure that these amendments fall within the scope of the Bill. However, this is an incredibly important issue that needs to be addressed by both the department and government. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, said, a review is not a big ask. In thinking about when the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, talked about imported livestock and the fact that the Minister did not have the numbers at Second Reading, I wonder whether the numbers are known at all—or, indeed, whether there is a guesstimate as to how many. It would be interesting to know whether those figures actually exist.
In speaking to her Amendment 3, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, mentioned breeding stock. I tried to put down an amendment on that but was told that it was not within the scope of the Bill, so I imagine that the noble Baroness’s amendment is not either. However, again, the points that she made about sanitary and phytosanitary checks on imports are incredibly important, whether we are looking at animal diseases that may reach our shores or that have already reached our shores. It is incredibly important that we are very aware of those border checks.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, tabled Amendment 4. As she did at Second Reading, she raised concerns about the movement of animals in Northern Ireland and their potential onward movement through Ireland to, as she said, wherever; we do not know where animals could end up and what conditions they could be held in. Again, in her amendment, she is asking for a review, in this case a review of the Bill’s impact on trade between Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the EU. To me, that seems a reasonable request.
In speaking to Amendment 5 in her name, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, clearly laid out farmers’ concerns regarding trade agreements. We are all very aware, I think, of the concerns that have been raised over the last few years while different trade agreements have been agreed or, sometimes, not agreed. The issues of animal welfare and standards have always been at the forefront of those discussions.
I conclude by saying to the Minister that, although some of the debate we have just had on this group is not within the scope of the Bill, these are issues that need addressing.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock, Lady Hoey and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for their engagement on this Bill and their contributions to this debate.
The proposed reviews of the impact on trade between Great Britain and the EU—or Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the EU—are not necessary, for several reasons. In the first place, there have been no recorded exports for slaughter or fattening from Great Britain to the EU since 2020, and this Bill makes that permanent. In these circumstances, putting an end to this trade cannot on its own have an impact on the current trade balance between Great Britain and the EU. We also have full clarity on the subject of livestock trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Movements of animals within the UK internal market are out of scope of this Bill. Slaughter and fattening movements will therefore be able to continue between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, although there have been very few movements of this kind.
The Bill will not apply in Northern Ireland to ensure that farmers in Northern Ireland have unfettered access to both the UK and Republic of Ireland markets. As a result, the Bill will not have an impact on the trade of livestock between Northern Ireland and the EU. The final destinations for the vast majority of livestock exported for slaughter from Northern Ireland are in the Republic.
Taken all together, I can understand the concerns that, despite this Bill, there will be loopholes for livestock movements from Great Britain to the EU via Northern Ireland. I assure noble Lords that the requirements on moving animals to Northern Ireland would make such a slaughter trade uneconomical. Livestock transported for slaughter from Great Britain to Northern Ireland must go directly to the slaughterhouse. It would be an offence to take them anywhere else. When livestock are moved for other purposes, they must be moved directly to the holding of destination and remain there for at least 30 days. Failure to do so is an offence and may result in prosecution.
To address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, my colleagues in Defra have a close working relationship with their counterparts in DAERA. They meet regularly to discuss issues related to livestock movements, and share information and developments where appropriate. As part of this mutual exchange, volumes of livestock movements in and out of Northern Ireland are closely monitored using data from the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the TRAde Control and Expert System.
I turn now to the subject of imports. First, I assure noble Lords that there are no, and never have been, significant imports for slaughter or fattening. According to our records on imports to Great Britain from the Republic of Ireland, since the beginning of 2021, around 1,800 pigs and 500 cattle have been imported for fattening while around 900 cattle have been imported for slaughter. The total number of livestock imports into Great Britain for fattening and slaughter from other EU countries is smaller still. This very small number of animals imported into Great Britain does not in any way constitute a comparable trade to the previous live export trade and is in stark contrast to the 44,500 sheep that were exported for slaughter or fattening from Great Britain to the EU in 2020.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about the impact assessment for the ban. Our impact assessment received clearance from the Regulatory Policy Committee and was published in July 2021. It estimated the direct cost to businesses to be around £5.2 million across the 10-year appraisal period, or around £500,000 a year. The Regulatory Policy Committee agreed that no further assessment by it was required. As there have been no recorded live exports for slaughter or fattening since the assessment was published, the impact will have further decreased.
The noble Baroness also asked about veterinary capacity for the European health certificate, in particular whether there are any issues relating to the certification process in Europe at the moment. My Defra colleagues are in close contact with their European counterparts. I would put the overall assessment on that as being negligible. There were one or two small incidents, particularly around 24-hour cover in some areas, but they seem to have been addressed and we are not receiving any further issues there.
A number of noble Baronesses asked about the reciprocal arrangements for border control posts in Europe. This is a commercial issue but we are sympathetic to the concerns of the businesses involved. As such, the department has been active in doing what it can to support a satisfactory outcome. Defra officials have continued to track progress on this issue and have met regularly with the NFU and others who represent the wider industry. It is disappointing that, despite all these efforts, the companies seeking to identify an appropriate solution have not been successful in securing a border control post to serve their preferred routes.
I assure noble Lords that welfare standards for livestock imported into Great Britain remain unaffected by this Bill. All of the very low numbers of livestock imports into Great Britain come from EU member states, primarily the Republic of Ireland. This means that the animals are reared in conditions that are comparable to the animal welfare standards that apply in Great Britain. We do not foresee any reason why this would change.
A number of noble Baronesses asked whether eggs are included in this. As eggs are not livestock, no, they are not. Furthermore, all imports of live animals must be transported in accordance with our animal welfare in transport regulations. Every consignment of livestock imported into Great Britain must be fit for transport and have a journey plan approved by the Animal and Plant Health Agency prior to arriving. Transporters must make all necessary arrangements in advance to minimise the duration of the journey and must comply with the rules on journey times and rest periods.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to have had the opportunity to debate this; I am particularly grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Fookes. We are often not entirely on the same page on this as, in the other place, I represented a livestock-producing part of the country and she represented a livestock-consuming part. She has campaigned with great vigour.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken for their support for the amendments. I am slightly disappointed that my noble friend the Minister skirted around some of the issues causing great concern to the farming community, which were so eloquently encapsulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, in terms of the impact on farmers. We are discussing animal welfare today but I am very conscious of the impact on the farming community from an onslaught and barrage of legislation such as this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned, my noble friend’s estimate was from 2021 when, in effect, there was no export. Having lost that probably five years previously —probably before Covid—the impact is much greater than £5.2 million.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, in this regard as well. She and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, mentioned the importance of monitoring. I do not think that my noble friend the Minister mentioned what monitoring there will be. It concerns me that we have not got to the bottom of this loophole, which does exist. I heard what he said about trade going through. I believe that it is lucrative enough and is already happening. I have been told that it is the only way for breeding stock to get out of the country. It is a much longer journey than would otherwise be the case.
My noble friend picked up on a point about slaughter-houses—but not the point that I made, which is that, because we have closed local abattoirs, livestock in this country has to travel further, which is obviously a source of concern to the farming community as well as consumers, the RSPCA and others. Vets are required on-site at slaughterhouses, which raises another issue about vets.
I take my noble friend’s point that these border posts in EU countries are a commercial arrangement but he skirted over the fact that this is a commercial arrangement that our farmers expect us to put in place for them. I hope that we can focus on the reciprocal arrangements for this.
I appreciate that my noble friend said at Second Reading that there are ongoing discussions about sanitary and phytosanitary arrangements, but I leave the Committee with the thought that breeding stock is a real issue. We have lost generations of breeding stock, which are immensely lucrative and obviously finite; they live for only so long, so to get them over to the continent is very pressing indeed, as is the urgency of phytosanitary agreements being negotiated and the opening up of border posts. I will discuss with colleagues what we might do at the next stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“Review of impact on welfare standards(1) Within six months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of the impact of this Act on welfare standards of livestock for export.(2) The review under subsection (1) must recommend whether further legislation should be introduced in response to the review.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to review the impact of the Act on welfare standards for livestock for export.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Amendment 6 is the only amendment in this group, but just before I go into the detail I want to mention to the Committee that I have had a message from my noble friend Lady Mallalieu to say how disappointed she is that she has been unable to join the debate, due to ill health, and to assure the Minister and Members that she fully supports the Bill but has some reservations around exporters of breeding stock to Europe. She does not feel that there was adequate consultation with them during the planning process of the Bill. I mention it here because I want to talk about welfare standards around breeding stock, and so it links to some of my concerns.
My Amendment 6, calling for a review of the impact on welfare standards within six months of the Bill being passed, is less about what is in the Bill and more about what is not. As the Bill covers only livestock and live exports that are for slaughter, and not those for breeding and competition, my concern is that, because the standards around breeding and competition are not covered, it risks some animals falling through the cracks in this area.
The British Veterinary Association sent a particularly good briefing on the impact of transport on animals’ health, including animals that are being transported within this country, not just exports. This was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. The BVA is asking that there be a well-defined set of animal health and welfare standards which must be met for the entirety of the journey of animals that are transported within this country, which I fully support and I hope that the Minister will, and that the minimum standards should be the same for all animals, no matter the purpose of the transportation.
The BVA talks about the multiple factors at the different stages of an animal’s journey that need to be considered. These include the transport time and distance from point of production. Its argument is that animals should always be slaughtered as close as possible to where they are reared, which brings me to the issue that the noble Baroness raised. So many small, local abattoirs have closed. I know that the Government are developing a very good policy on this and are funding small abattoirs, but the funding is only to keep currently existing abattoirs open, not to reopen any that have closed. Unless we look at that aspect, animals in this country will always travel further distances than they ever have in the past.
At this stage, I should draw attention to my interest as president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, as this is something it has done quite a lot of work on. The BVA also talks about the transport design, the condition, the stocking densities and the skill of the driver. How the driver actually transports these animals—watering, feeding intervals, rest periods and the proper monitoring of health and welfare—is not talked about enough.
It also points out that, in December 2023, the EU announced plans to replace the current legislation for the protection of animals during transport. These changes would include maximum journey times, limits on transportation under high temperatures, increased space allowances and increased welfare requirements for vulnerable animals. Its concern is that the UK risks falling behind, and therefore diminishing its world reputation when it comes to animal welfare, if we do not look at replicating something similar for animals that are transported within this country. I know that is not about banning live exports, but if one of the reasons we are doing this is because of animal welfare during transportation, it is logical that the next step is to consider the standards within this country when we are transporting animals.
Finally, I thank the Minister for responding to and reassuring me on the questions I raised at Second Reading about delays to sea journeys. I was particularly concerned about that, and I thank the Minister for his thorough response, which was much appreciated. Transportation in animals is a bigger issue than simply that addressed in the Bill.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I will intervene briefly to support the contents of Amendment 6, as moved so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock.
I had to give a wry smile, because I spent hours in the European Parliament passing legislation on the movement of animals, including on the length of journey and the feeding and watering intervals. Can my noble friend say—I cannot remember but I am sure his department will—whether we transposed all the existing regulations on animal welfare at the time that we left the European Union? Is it part of our retained EU law? I do not think we need to start from scratch—that is extremely important. That is true particularly in view of what the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, was saying about long journeys from Scotland. I am not saying that there should not be journeys from Scotland—it is very proud of its livestock production —but we need to be sure that we have transposed those regulations and that we will not start absolutely from scratch.
That also begs the question that I referred to earlier about the shortage of vets. I was grateful for the briefing we had, over a very enjoyable evening, from the British Veterinary Association. I am sorry that my noble friend was not there, but the Secretary of State was, and he acquitted himself extremely well. The point was made that there is a shortage of vets, and a plea was made to whichever party is in government after the next election—I am sure it will be a Conservative Government, so I am addressing my noble friend very vigorously here—that we should address the issue that the BVA raised about veterinary qualifications and the status of veterinary. This was a big issue in some of the Brexit legislation that went through. We had a number of Spanish and other European vets who left, so there is a shortage of vets.
This is my noble friend’s opportunity to wax lyrical about abattoirs. My husband and I have a voucher—it is rather an odd thing to bid for—to go and visit an abattoir followed by a lunch. We thought we might do it the other way round—we will see how it goes. With the closure of abattoirs, not only are there longer journeys but there is a requirement that a vet is at the abattoir for the duration of the slaughter process. Is that putting undue pressure on vets, as well as all the export certificates that are required in this regard? I am also deeply disappointed that eggs and poultry meat are not included in the remit of the Bill.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I am always in favour of anything that might improve the welfare of animals. Of course, one must include this review of the impact. However, on a technical point, I wonder whether this does not go slightly beyond the remit of the Bill itself. We are dealing in the Bill only with the export of animals for slaughter or further fattening, and this refers to export alone, not to animals that are going to be slaughtered. It would be aimed rather at the sort of animals that would be going over for racing, showjumping and the breeding of specialist animals.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has raised the issue of the welfare of animals for export, which was raised at Second Reading. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, makes a very valid point about the welfare of expensive animals which are covered by this Bill.
The Bill allows, quite rightly, for animals to be exported for the purposes of showing, breeding and taking part in competitions. The owners of the animals will want their animals to arrive in tip-top condition. Some of the travel times which occurred for animals exported for fattening and slaughter, and their access to food and water, were completely unacceptable and shocking. I hope that that would not apply to the animals covered by the Bill as being permitted to be exported.
Although the owners of those animals going abroad for the purposes listed in the Bill are likely to ensure that their animals are well cared for, we cannot take this for granted and, occasionally, some exported animals may have a less than enjoyable experience once they have left our shores. For that reason, I support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, although I am not entirely sure that it fits within the remit of the Bill. A review of the welfare of exported animals for whatever purposes, permitted under the Bill, should be reviewed to ensure that everyone is complying with the regulations.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for this amendment, which I would support. Concerns have been raised in the equine world that there is fear that horses will be exported under the guise of competition but will then immediately go to slaughter. Do port authorities currently track the movement of livestock for breeding or competition out of our ports?
I also support the point made by the noble Baroness about the veterinary situation. There is still a shortage of veterinary staff. It is getting better but it is still an area that we are concerned about—certainly, with veterinary staff at ports. Certainly, we would welcome European veterinary staff on the other side of the border, and an animal import area in the French ports would be welcomed, if we could pressurise the EU for that.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank noble Lords who have spoken for their support. The purpose of putting down this amendment was to be able to be able to talk very broadly about standards right across the piece, to make sure that no movement of animals was permitted to be below really high standards. The wording came about after a number of attempts; this was the one that was considered to be in scope, so that I was able to debate these issues. I am aware that this is about export and not about movement in this country but, again, we need to keep this on the radar and the Government need to look at it, particularly as the EU has toughened up its rules.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, just made a really good point—it was also made at Second Reading— about the potential misuse of the Bill when it is enacted: for example the illegal transport of animals under the guise of them being for breeding but them then being slaughtered. I know that some equine charities have raised concerns about the potential for that to happen. What will be put in place to ensure that it happens absolutely as minimally as possible?
Having said all that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
The noble Baroness might like to hear the Minister speak before she withdraws her amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sorry. It is terribly important that I listen very carefully to everything that the Minister has to say.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I am not quite sure where to begin—or, indeed, where to finish now.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I know that everybody is in a hurry to catch their trains. As I speak, I am trying to work up an interesting story on abattoirs at the same time. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and others for their engagement on the Bill and their proposals as to how this legislation might be refined.
I will touch on the issue of horses and equines first because it is a good point that has been raised with me on a number of occasions. We are striking a fine balance here to make it possible for people to go abroad with their animals—in this case, their horses—for breeding purposes and to go to events, shows, et cetera. My personal observation is that it is blindingly obvious when you are taking a horse to a race or a show and when you have 15 scruffy-looking horses in a scruffy vehicle and you say, “Yeah, we’re just going to the gymkhana over in France. We might be back later”, but this is not always a clear-cut thing. I appreciate that there is the possibility that something nefarious could happen in this space but I believe that the controls we have in place will arrest 99.999% of that space, which is about as much as we might expect.
Let me crack on with some of my other answers. The impact that this Bill will have on the welfare standards of exported livestock is clear, I hope. The Bill will stop the export of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and horses for slaughter and fattening. The impact on the welfare standards of these movements will be that these unnecessary journeys will stop entirely. Export journeys for slaughter or fattening are unnecessary because the animals could be slaughtered or fattened domestically. The animals that would have previously been exported for slaughter and fattening will now go on domestic journeys that are shorter in duration and less stressful than any equivalent export journey.
A number of questions were asked about internal journeys. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked about drivers. We have a driving course and a certificate of competence that are required here. All drivers in attendance are expected and supposed to undertake this training; that is checked. I hope that that helps but I take the wider point that was made on that.
I also take the wider point on abattoirs, which are an issue and link to many other issues in this space—in particular, the issue of vets. I am currently in extensive discussions on vets with the wider veterinary profession, with noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have an express interest in this matter and with the Chief Veterinary Officer. We have a little working group working on that at the moment to explore what we might do.
I was pleased to see earlier this week that two smaller abattoirs are opening and one, in Yorkshire, is reopening. There is a concerted effort here to make this a reality but I appreciate that it is a problem. I suspect, although I do not know, that the nature of the work is probably a large part of the problem here: if you have spent five years training to be a vet, standing in an abattoir and signing off certificates is probably not the most exciting thing that you thought you might be doing; I am guessing that, in the wider context, working in an abattoir is not an exhilarating experience. The point is well made and the matter is in hand.
Let me turn to some of the other issues that cropped up. Welfare issues for animals in transport came up, not just for exports but for domestic transport. This is principally governed by Council Regulation (EC) 1/2005
“on the protection of animals during transport and related operations”,
which is assimilated legislation. This is supplemented by domestic orders in England, Wales and Scotland. I have referred to a couple of issues on that.
Transporters have a legal duty to protect the welfare of the animals in their care. This means that contingency plans must be in place to ensure that animal welfare is not compromised—even in the event of the disruption of a journey, for example. These plans should include identifying control posts and emergency lairage facilities that can be used to provide animals with appropriate rest periods; using alternative routes; or postponing the journey until sea conditions or other conditions are suitable for it to take place.
Turning to the second part of this amendment, I assure noble Lords that we already keep welfare in transport policy more generally under review. This Bill is an example of that and follows the Farm Animal Welfare Committee’s 2018 report, commissioned by the UK Government and the Scottish and Welsh Governments, which examined animal welfare during the transport of livestock.
We discussed one of the Bill’s most crucial measures during this debate: the species within scope. I have set out why the current definition of “relevant livestock” is sufficiently comprehensive.
To conclude, I appreciate the noble Baroness’s wish to ensure that the Bill’s impact continues to be kept under review following Royal Assent. Given that the impact of the Bill on the welfare standards of livestock for export is clear and we already keep the wider policy areas under close review, it is not necessary to add these further requirements to the Bill. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, may I say how much I enjoyed listening to the Minister’s response? I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hoey
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the extent provisions from the Bill to probe the implications of the current extent provisions for Northern Ireland.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Amendment 7 is the only way that the Bill Office was able to agree that I could raise some probing issues about the implications of the current extent of provision to Northern Ireland. Noble Lords will know that, in the other place, there was a move to include Northern Ireland; I was not able to put that in as it was not possible but this amendment gives us a short opportunity to discuss this. I will not be giving my normal 25 or 35-minute speech on how dreadful the Windsor Framework and the protocol are because I think that, on this occasion, most Members here who want to see the Bill go through recognise that the protocol has caused problems on things such as this. In my view, animal welfare should not be devolved; animal welfare is animal welfare wherever it is and whatever part of the United Kingdom it is in.
When the Minister responds, I know that he will say, “We would love to do this. We think it is really important that animals can move for slaughter from Northern Ireland to the Republic”. It is a very important trade for farmers in Northern Ireland, and no one wants to stop that, but we want to prevent those animals being taken any further. Everything that has been said today has been about GB to Northern Ireland or GB to the Republic, and the safeguards that this will give, but, as I said earlier, there are no safeguards whatever for animals already in Northern Ireland, where they are being moved to and the distances they will have to travel.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is rightly concerned about what is happening in Northern Ireland. Previous amendments have made reference to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland protocol has implications for animals. The number of animals moving through Ireland was listed in previous amendments.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for raising this so that we can have this short debate. I have listened to her and am concerned that the passage of some animals may lead to unacceptable journeys. The WTO rules must be adhered to but there are ways to inject flexibility. I await with interest the Minister’s comments especially in relation to bluetongue, which he wrote to me about; perhaps he could now share that with the rest of the Committee.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for introducing her amendment. She made some important points on Northern Ireland and on the transport between Northern Ireland and the Republic and onwards. It is a really complicated area and we have to take the concerns around it very seriously. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response but there are probably more discussions to be had around this issue.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and others for their engagement on this Bill.
Let me first address the issue of the stepping stone from Europe to Ireland. What I would prefer to do, if I may, is take that outside of this discussion and the Bill today because it is not entirely connected. Perhaps I could come back to the noble Baroness separately on that.
I am very aware of the strength of feeling here and of the wider political issues so I shall stick to my script on this and not ad lib it, otherwise I shall get myself into terrible trouble. The Bill will prohibit the export of livestock and equines for slaughter and fattening from Great Britain to destinations outside of the UK and Crown dependencies. As the noble Baroness knows, none of the provisions affect Northern Ireland so there is no need for the Bill to extend to it; that is why the extent provisions are drafted as they are.
I understand the noble Baroness’s desire, through this probing amendment, to debate the implications of the Bill’s extent in relation to Northern Ireland. The Bill does not apply in Northern Ireland because of the vital importance of livestock movements for slaughter and fattening to the Republic of Ireland. Farmers in Northern Ireland routinely move animals in this way. The noble Baroness recognises this fact and has queried why we are not proposing a ban on exports from Northern Ireland with a targeted exemption for movements ending in the Republic of Ireland. A range of international agreements—I am waiting for a list of them—and their core principles, including World Trade Organization rules, would prevent an exemption of this kind, as the noble Baroness said.
The noble Baroness asked whether exceptions to the WTO requirements, such as that for measures to protect public morals, could apply in this case. Crucially, those exceptions cannot apply in a manner that would constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail. Any measure based on the exception must be applied in a consistent fashion to comparable trading partners. It is therefore not possible to make an exception for the Republic of Ireland on animal welfare grounds without extending the exception to other comparable countries outside the United Kingdom.
I understand the noble Baroness’ wish to explore whether the Bill could be extended further so that it applies across the United Kingdom. However, any such proposal would be either damaging to the Northern Irish economy or incompatible with our international agreements. The provisions that this amendment seeks to remove are necessary to set out the territorial extent of the Bill. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. I am fond of him, and I know that he is fairly new to his position, but I have to say that I am not sure that he believes what he has been reading out on certain aspects of this. It would be very helpful to have the list of international organisations put in the Library, or perhaps in a response to me.
I know that it is not specifically related to the Bill, but I am also not terribly happy about the bluetongue issue. There is a similar aspect there, with farmers in Northern Ireland in a way being discriminated against. I think that the Minister should be able to answer on that very soon. On the issue about bluetongue and transporting from the EU direct to Northern Ireland through Great Britain—to Scotland or anywhere and then to Northern Ireland—I think probably all noble Lords would like that not to be possible. That should go into the Library as well, so that noble Lords can see it.
I will simply say that I do not think that I have learned anything particularly new in the arguments that the Government have put for this, and they have been very weak on it. I do not criticise the Minister or even his department; other forces are at work. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Shamash
Red Sea Telecommunication Cables
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Rawlings
To ask His Majesty’s Government what support they are providing to help protect telecommunication cables in the Red Sea.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, the Government take the security of the UK’s critical national infrastructure extremely seriously. We are working closely with private commercial interests to better understand the ongoing situation in the Red Sea and the resilience of telecoms networks. In recent months, Defence has acted decisively to protect international shipping in the Red Sea from the Houthi’s dangerous and illegal attacks, while continuing to apply diplomatic pressure.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. The Red Sea is particularly vulnerable to attack because of its narrow and shallow proximity to Iran’s naval bases. Digital data is not in the cloud but depends 97% on seabed cables, and trillions get transferred yearly. Unlike ships, there are no flags, and they are not legally registered to any country. They are easily cut, causing major disruption in the world. Their location is freely available, with scope for plausible deniability. Does the Minister agree that there have been two very good reports, one by our Prime Minister in 2017 and one this year, stressing that China, with its undersea great wall, and Russia, with its sensors and unmanned vehicles, pose a severe threat? What is the UK’s strategic doctrine guiding our seabed policy? With Russia’s aggressive behaviour in the European Atlantic, what is the UK doing to support NATO’s defence system?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I will cut to the chase. We take all this extremely seriously, but it is important to contextualise the risk. The most likely cause by far of damage to subsea cables comes from accidental damage by industrial fishing and shipping and from underwater geological events. That is not to say that undersea cables are not prone to attack but it is extremely rare, and the commercial organisations can divert very quickly to alternative routes. Having said that, the Ministry of Defence has capabilities to monitor the seabed and has invested in a multi-role ocean surveillance programme which enhances our joint intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance capability. We work collegiately with allies, including NATO, to ensure that subsea infrastructure is resilient.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, one issue is clearly the cutting of cables. The other is cyberattacks on undersea cables. What is the MoD’s position on that, and do we have adequate resilience?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the question of resilience is one of ongoing technological change. However, through maritime domain awareness, which is a critical part of our maritime defence and is more specifically about the UK’s national waters rather than international waters, we collect an enormous amount of data to provide accurate information through surveillance software, coastal radars, aviation operations, space-based reconnaissance and government vessels. We get an enormous amount of data. Resilience is something which we consistently and constantly work on.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
The Minister has said that physical attacks on undersea infrastructure are very rare, and this is true at the moment, but it is unlikely to be true in a period of heightened tension and approaching conflict. It is not just the Red Sea. Our undersea connections for communications and power supplies, such as for gas and oil with Norway, are extensive and are growing ever greater in the Arctic. The Minister mentioned some of the capabilities that the UK military has to defend them, but they are very few and far between. Given the proliferation of this entirely new and very challenging threat, is Grant Shapps not absolutely right to call for an increase in the defence budget to 3% of GDP?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, nobody would be surprised to know that, yes, I think Grant Shapps is absolutely right.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord West, I ask: what naval assets do we have to protect the underwater cables?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, our naval assets are substantial. In fact, there are new support ships coming in that have the specific capability of underwater surveillance, so it is well on the way.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I will add some specifics to that. RFA “Proteus” is our multi-role oceanographic survey ship. Interestingly, its purchase was announced by Ben Wallace in November 2022 and it was in service less than one year later, which is really quite impressive. Will my noble friend say what the lessons of the speed of that procurement are and whether it is our intention to purchase any further vessels in future?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the speed of that acquisition is a fantastic example of how when procurement goes right, the agility and ability to acquire, equip and train crews to man these sorts of vehicles is comfortably within our capability. I do not know precisely when the next ship is due to come, and I will write to my noble friend with that information.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
What assessment have the Government made of the impacts of the cuts to these telecommunications cables on the telecommunications traffic from Asia to Europe or whatever? What are they going to do specifically to protect the workers needed to fix those cables?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. On the whole, the cables themselves are not fixed but replaced. It is too dangerous and time-consuming to replace them because of the depth they are at and the danger from shipping. These are commercial decisions, and there are commercial sensitivities that we really cannot go into. Suffice it to say that we are acutely aware of what the risk might be in this area.
Lord Teverson (LD)
For UK data security, the rather unglamorous solution is the proliferation of these cables, which to a degree is already naturally happening commercially. Where there is real vulnerability is at landing sites, where there is a concentration of these cables. We need to diversify those landing sites on this side of the Atlantic. Does the Minister agree? If so, what action are the Government taking to make sure that takes place?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
The noble Lord is right that proliferation is an issue. As has been mentioned, the amount of data that travels through these cables is so significant that it requires all the protection it can get. The question of landing sites is very much part of the overall security resilience that we have been talking about. I can only imagine that they are going to become more and more important as we continue to suffer such an unstable global situation.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the Houthis. What assessment have the Government made of the ability of the Houthis to replace the weapons they have used or those that have been destroyed by Royal Air Force and other allied attacks? It is important to know whether the Houthis will be able to continue the sorts of attacks that they started some months ago.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
The noble and gallant Lord is right. The Government’s approach to addressing the issue of the Houthis has not really changed. It is all about increasing diplomatic engagement, ending the illegal flow of arms—I think we are all fully in support of that—cutting off the financial resources of the Houthis and helping the people of Yemen, who need support.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned diplomacy. Surely this brings into sharp focus the need for a robust and sustainable peace process. Obviously military action is part of what is needed, but can he give us an update on how the peace process is going at the moment and what role the UK is playing?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, that is not strictly within my brief. However, I am fully aware that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary and my noble friend Lord Ahmad have recently met the relevant parties, and the importance of the peace process could not be emphasised more.
Royal Navy: Climate Change Training
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McColl of Dulwich
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce training for the Royal Navy on climate change.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, the defence command plan refresh highlighted that defence is already being impacted by climate change and that we must face the reality of operating in a harsher climate and adapt accordingly, enhancing both our capabilities and our operational advantage. As part of the ongoing work to ensure that defence is resilient to the impact of climate change, we have introduced an awareness course on climate change and defence resilience for the Armed Forces and Ministry of Defence personnel. Currently there are no plans for that training to become mandatory.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Will any training include the scientific record of how the climate has changed substantially without either human interference or causing human extinction? For example, during the Younger Dryas, about 12,000 years ago, the temperature fell dramatically and then rose again by as much as 10 degrees centigrade over a period of 50 years, while during the Middle Ages the temperature of the earth was higher than it is today. Abandoning attempts to prevent climate change would save the West from bankruptcy and release a large amount of money for defence and would even enable us to buy some frigates, which would please the noble Lord, Lord West.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the question of climate change and defence resilience is increasingly at the heart of what we are doing. The UK’s ability to understand the impact of climate change across defence and to adapt to it will be key to gaining strategic advantage.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I shall ask the Minister a question that is within his brief. The respected Institute for Economics and Peace has identified 27 countries with over 700 million people who already face catastrophic ecological threats but at the same time have the lowest levels of societal resilience. This is a recipe for conflict. The list includes countries where we are likely to deploy our Armed Forces and other humanitarian and emergency responders if requested so to do. The Minister and I have had cause to discuss the complications and consequences of the manifestation of an unanticipated risk that caused the accidental death of a member of our armed services deployed with our allies in a foreign jurisdiction in a post-conflict environment. With that in mind, since we have identified the countries where we will need them, should we not be working on appropriate and comprehensive status of forces agreements now in anticipation of this situation arising again?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. However, I make two points. First, we will not and cannot compromise military capability solely for a sustainable solution. A key principle here is to safeguard the national defence, and that is paramount. Secondly, having said that, the UK is world-leading in this area, and we should be proud of our Armed Forces’ efforts to gain an edge on the threats and challenges posed by climate change. Each service is making significant improvements.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. While education is very important, even more important is capacity. HMS “Protector” is currently our only icebreaker. Last week it returned from Operation Austral in the Antarctic, where it was delivering supplies, carrying out hydrographic surveys and improving the safety of naval passage. I urge the Minister to build on that capacity and, as we train the Royal Navy, to draw on the experience that HMS “Protector” and the teams have gained over the last few years.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that extremely valid point. She is right that we need to learn from our experience. The Navy in particular is building in adaptability to all future platforms to ensure flexibility of fuel sources and all energy-efficient technologies wherever possible.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, following on from the noble Baroness’s question, Lieutenant General Richard Nugee warned that global warming may affect the Royal Navy’s technical capabilities. He warned that rising sea temperatures might make it difficult for ships to cool their engines as they rely on cold seawater. It would be helpful if the Minister could provide an update on what assessment has been made by the Ministry of Defence of the impact that rising sea temperatures have had or could have on the technical efficacy of Royal Navy ships.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
Again, that is an extremely valid point. The MoD has just held its first climate security wargame across government, with international representation, and it was the MoD that led it. It is now assessing the outcomes and the lessons learned. Things such as rising sea temperatures and land temperatures are exactly the sort of area that was being considered. This and future wargames will inform all operational planning and current and future military capabilities to ensure that defence understands how capabilities will perform and operate in these changing environments; that is, both physical and security environments.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, climate change and its future impact will not only impede our ability to project force but will be a key driver of conflicts. Responding to climate breakdown disasters will become a regular reason for deployment. Does the Minister agree that arguing that the Royal Navy should not be prepared for climate change, as some have, is the modern equivalent of asking the Navy to work on the assumption that the earth is flat?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
That was a very nice allegory; I entirely agree. It is embedded in everything that all services, not just the Royal Navy, undertake. This is to ensure that what is inevitable—the climate change we are facing within the next relatively short period of time—is completely planned and catered for. As I said, that will give us a strategic advantage.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, I think we can all agree that the main purpose of the Question is to express our concerns about the health of our planet. However, I will extend that to say that I am concerned about the health—as the noble Lord, Lord West, will be pleased to know—of the Royal Navy. Will the Minister comment on His Majesty’s Government’s view of the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s statement yesterday that the economy should be put on a war footing, not just to grow the economy, but to grow the size of the defence budget from 2.5% to 3% in the interests of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I am increasingly thinking this is rather like Groundhog Day. I entirely agree, but the words “war footing” are slightly alarmist. There is no doubt that we are in a considerably more unstable environment and that we need to invest in industrial capacity to rebuild our stockpiles and re-equip all our forces. As I said the other day, we have 22 ships and submarines on order. We have 1,200 armoured vehicles currently on order. The RAF has its greatest lift capacity since the Second World War. The new Chinooks announced yesterday by the Secretary of State are extremely good news.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, grounded in the reality of 2024 and the climate emergency, Britain faces greatly increased risks and the reality of floods, droughts, fires, and heat affecting public health. The independent Climate Change Committee said yesterday that the third national adaptation programme was wholly inadequate. Given that there will be increasing demands for military aid for civilian authorities—known as MACA—what extra training and provision are happening within the Navy? With areas such as floods, the Navy should have the capacity to help.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, there are training programmes in all three forces, and the whole question of climate change and the changing environment we will have to face is deeply embedded in that. However, I confirm that we will not compromise on military capabilities solely for some form of sustainable solution. Our job in the Ministry of Defence is to ensure and safeguard the national defence.
India: Democratic Freedoms
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness D'Souza
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reported threats to democratic freedoms in India.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom Government are absolutely committed to standing up for democracy and defending human rights around the world. We have a broad and deep partnership with the Government of India. We discuss all elements of our relationship, including concerns where we have them. I visited India in February and had constructive discussions with government representatives on a wide range of issues.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. The BJP policy of Hindu nationalism is increasingly invading press freedom, political opposition and the civil society space. For example, the use of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, sedition law, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, all hint at an electoral autocracy in the world’s largest nominal democracy. There appears to be a departure from India’s secular constitution and its underlying democratic principles. Does the Minister not believe these to be dangerous precedents?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, one area I am very focused on is the importance of the constitutional protections that we have, as well as those that we see abroad. India is a country that provides constitutional protections to communities. I understand the concerns the noble Baroness alludes to. I assure her in every respect that, on every one of the legislative instruments she has mentioned, we have made our views known to India and we will continue to do so. India is a country which is multi-party and elections are coming forward. It is for the people of India to decide on their Government, but it is a country which celebrates a wide diversity of religions as well.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, how are the Government collaborating with western partners to address shared challenges and promote democratic governance, human rights and the rule of law? What opportunities exist for joint initiatives and co-operation in supporting India’s democratic trajectory while advancing mutual interests?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble friend raises the important issue of collaboration. I also put to my noble friend that with India we do not just have a partnership; I would term it a friendship. The nature and depth of the relationship allows us to raise issues of concern on a broad range of human rights indirectly in a constructive way, and we continue to do so. Of course, we learn from each other. India is the world's largest democracy, and its election is imminent. There will be a larger degree of commentary on that, but I believe very strongly that the transparency of the election will be very clear. We hope that all communities in India, as is their right within the constitution, will exercise their right to vote.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, India is critical to the success of the sustainable development goals. The Secretary-General, on the 75th anniversary of India, said that it was at a critical point in terms of the opportunity to
“lead by example, as a model of resilience and an advocate for sustainable development”
goals. Labour has long supported India’s role in international forums such as the UN Security Council. Could the noble Lord update us on where we are in terms of reaching a consensus for expanding the permanent membership of the UN Security Council?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
As the noble Lord knows, the United Kingdom is a long-standing supporter of expanding the UN Security Council. That remains the case with this Government. We believe the inclusion of India as a key member of that widened Security Council is fundamental to reform. However, the noble Lord will be aware of the challenges we face because of the constitution of the Security Council. It requires unanimity amongst the P5, and we have seen the challenges that presents in recent years.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, last year the Canadian Government expelled Indian diplomats for their involvement in the murder of a Canadian Sikh. This was followed by an attempt in America by the Indian Government to assassinate an American Sikh. In this country, the death of a Sikh in suspicious circumstances in Birmingham led Westminster Police to warn prominent Sikhs of a possible threat to their lives at the hands of Indian agents. Prime Minister Modi, shown in a BBC documentary as having a responsibility for the Gujarat riots in which thousands of Muslims were killed, is now planning a citizenship law that will disadvantage thousands of Muslims in a so-called secular state. Are the Government not being a little hypocritical in not voicing their criticism of India’s abuse of human rights in the same strident terms they reserve for Russia and non-Commonwealth countries?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I would not compare India in any shape or form to Russia—we have to be very clear about that. On the specific case that the noble Lord raised, he will be aware that, following speculation on it, a thorough review undertaken by the West Midlands Police concluded that there were no suspicious circumstances. On the wider issues the noble Lord raised, the CAA, which he referred to, was a specific provision, and we have of course raised concerns related to that. But it is clear that it provides freedom of religion or belief protections and minority protections for people seeking citizenship in India from neighbouring Islamic states. We have raised concerns about minorities within the Muslim communities from those states. This amendment allows someone to get citizenship within five years, but Muslims from those states will still be allowed to get citizenship within the 11 years specified.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, further to the noble Baroness’s question on press freedom, I know this has been a focus of the Minister’s work on human rights. Across its services, the BBC provides more services to Indians than the entire population of the United Kingdom, but, as a result of harassment and intimidation, it has had to uniquely restructure its presence within India to operate from a purely private sector entity. Will the Minister reassure me that officials from the Department for Business and Trade who are negotiating an FTA with India will not provide a market-access offer for Indians to have opportunities in the UK media market while those are not reciprocal for broadcasters such as the BBC within India?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is right. This Government stand up for media freedom and the protection of media. Indeed, the current Chancellor of the Exchequer initiated such a programme during his time as Foreign Secretary, and we stand by that coalition. We continue to raise those specific concerns related to the BBC with the Government of India, and I assure the noble Lord that, on the positive progress on the FTA, we want to ensure that it is an agreement that works for both countries, that is robust and that is in the interest of all communities, sectors and industries in India and the United Kingdom.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, the number of acts of religiously motivated violence against Christians in India has increased almost every year since 2014, from 147 to 687 in 2023. Last year, over 500 Christians were arrested under anti-conversion laws, including a couple and their pastor during their wedding, on the grounds that it was a conversion event. Will the Minister condemn this state of affairs and, if so, what steps will the Government take with their allies to defend the freedom of religion and belief in India?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I assure the right reverend Prelate that this Government, with our partners, are fully committed to defending freedom of religion or belief globally. Any reports of discrimination against religious minorities are investigated by the Indian police. We have raised direct concerns about forced conversions, and I assure the right reverend Prelate that we will continue to raise these in a productive and constructive way with the Government of India.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, before the United Kingdom Government push again for India to join the permanent five, will we look for an improvement in India of the treatment of minorities and the democratic process?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I said in previous answers that we continue to recognise India’s valuable contribution internationally, but, equally, we raise concerns constructively where we see them.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in addition to the dangers to minorities identified so far, can the noble Lord assure us that he raises these questions about communal violence, sectarianism and the threat that has to India? I specifically note the recent position in Manipur, for instance, with the hill tribes there being targeted because of their ethnicity and religion. I also note the 166 million Dalits, who continue to be discriminated against. Does the noble Lord raise with the Indian Government the wonderful constitution crafted by a Dalit, Dr Ambedkar, which guarantees those rights, and the work of people like Dr Brian Grim, which shows how freedom of religion or belief leads to prosperity, stability and harmony?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I totally concur with the noble Lord’s summary because that is demonstrable in any country around the world. On the issue of Dalits, we have seen progress in this respect not just on the crafting of the constitution but in terms of the progress that Dalits, and indeed all communities, have made in India. Those have to be protected and strengthened. On Manipur, I met with Home Secretary Bhalla when I was in India and I raised that directly with him. This remains an area of direct and constructive dialogue.
Cancer: Staffing
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
To ask His Majesty’s Government, in the light of warnings by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, what assessment they have made of the risk to cancer patients in England presented by the staffing levels, workloads and working conditions of healthcare professionals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
I express my regret about the cases referenced by the ombudsman. The department is taking steps to reduce cancer diagnosis and treatment waiting times across England and to improve survival rates across all cancer types. Through announcing the first ever NHS long-term workforce plan, we are taking meaningful steps to build the NHS workforce for the future. The Government are backing the plan, with over £2.4 billion of funding for additional education and training places.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will know that numerous complaints relating to patients with cancer that were investigated by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman included misdiagnosis, treatment delays, the mismanagement of conditions, poor communication and unsuitable end-of-life care. As the NHS is grappling with over 110,000 staff shortages, how is patient safety being compromised by the Government’s long delay in bringing forward the workforce plan? What immediate action will the Government take to deal with the continuing risk to cancer patients posed by a workforce that the ombudsman describes as “understaffed, under pressure and exhausted”?
Lord Markham (Con)
As the noble Baroness says, we see increasing the workforce as a core component here. I was speaking to the president of the Royal College of Radiologists about this the other day, and we obviously need to make sure that the workforce can be as effective as possible at what it does. We are doing a lot of new diagnosis, and 80% of all the medical AI technologies are in the radiography space, which is making a huge difference to diagnosis and productivity. It is clearly fundamental that we get the treatment to these people as quickly as possible.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that there has been underfunding of the NHS for more than a decade now and that our cancer recovery rates do not compare with those of our competitors in Europe? Will he agree to have an urgent uplift in the funding of cancer services in particular over the next period, in order to try to lift our recovery rates up to those of Europe?
Lord Markham (Con)
Noble Lords have heard me say many times that we are investing roughly 10% of the economy into the health space, which is much more than ever before and comparable to nations around the world—apart from America, which stands significantly above. I am sure noble Lords saw the headline in the Times today that survival rates are at their best level ever, and there has been a 35% reduction in mortality rates for men and women over the last 10 or 15 years. So there is a lot of progress in this space, but I accept that we need to invest more—that is what the new CDCs, and the 7 million extra tests they are performing, are all about.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest with the Dispensing Doctors’ Association. Does my noble friend share my concern about the number of GPs, particularly those under 55, who are considering retirement in the next five years? How do the Government plan to fill the vacancies that will be created, to ensure that, particularly in rural areas, a fast track will exist for patients who are suffering from cancer for the earliest possible referral to hospital? I refer to the letter I wrote to our noble friend Lord Evans on this.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend and totally agree that GPs are the front line of our medical services. We are trying to do everything we can to make sure that they feel valued and are retained. The recent change to the pension law was all about addressing that very point, answering GPs’ number 1 concern in order to keep them. Their hard work has seen a 25% increase in the cancer referral rate: we treated 3 million people, up 600,000, over the last year, thanks to their work and the expansion in the diagnostic centres we have set up.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with us on these Benches that there should be a statutory two-month period between diagnosis and access to appropriate treatment for any cancer patient? In order to achieve that, there needs to be further investment in radiography training and an equitable distribution of trainee radiographers and qualified radiographers across the country. How will the Government ensure that that happens?
Lord Markham (Con)
As I mentioned, that was very much the big feature of the discussion that I had with the president of the Royal College of Radiologists just the other day. We have been growing the number of radiographers by about 3% every year, which is a good rate, and we look to increase that even further. The CDCs are about that. However, the actual demand is increasing by about 5% every year. Clearly, as well as recruitment, we need to make sure that we have effective diagnosis, and this is where the field of AI is very exciting. The radiographers are 100% behind it, because they really see the revolutionary effect it is bringing.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, we are certainly shortly of staff, and the problem is not increasing recruitment but enhancing retention. Staff are leaving because they are disillusioned and disaffected, and we do not treat them well enough. Any large business knows that, if you have a happy workforce, it will be productive. We certainly do not have that in the NHS. We certainly need to stop this dismissive attitude and enhance the conditions of their service, and it is not simply about pay. Does he agree?
Lord Markham (Con)
I totally agree that it is a range of things. I completely agree with the noble Lord that a good employer should be looking to make sure that employees have good working conditions and feel valued, and that there is an understanding culture in the workplace as well as decent pay. I say all this in the context that the workforce in the cancer space has actually increased by 56% since 2010, so it is not as if there have not been massive increases here. The actual number of treatments and diagnoses has gone up by more than 20% from pre-pandemic levels. So we are doing a lot in this space, but I agree with the noble Lord’s basic premise that we need to ensure that staff feel valued so they will want to carry on working.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as being employed in part by the Velindre Cancer Centre in Cardiff. Do the Government recognise that continuity of care is absolutely essential for patients to be able to spot when things are changing and to allow sensitive conversations to occur? Will he therefore undertake to have urgent discussions with the Royal Colleges and with Health Education England to look at the training rotas for doctors who are working in oncology, allowing them to provide better continuity of care with less disruption to their own lifestyles, and better support? Will he also look at recommending that they might draw on the Welsh experience of Talk CPR, which allows early conversations about very difficult topics, providing video books and so on that patients can take home and then come back to see the same person again some time afterwards, providing continuity of care and better communication?
Lord Markham (Con)
First off, I completely agree about continuity of care—in any treatment, to be honest. I was just saying, in answer to a maternity question the other day, that continuity of care in the midwifery space is another vital example. On the question of learning lessons from what the noble Baroness mentioned, we have some meetings set up, so I look forward to discussing it further then.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my registered interests. The Minister rightly identified an improvement in survival rates for those between their late 30s and 69 over the last 30 years. He also accepted the fact that those delivering cancer services are under a huge amount of pressure to ensure timely provision of that care. It is also essential to achieving long-term improvement in outcomes that we continue to innovate and that clinicians are provided the opportunity to participate in clinical research, which validates innovation and allows its adoption at scale and pace. Is the Minister content that we are doing enough to protect time for clinical research and participation by all healthcare professionals in those protocols to drive those advances in innovation?
Lord Markham (Con)
First, I completely agree on the need for and the vital importance of clinical research in all this. Providing clinicians with time does two things: it means that they get their incredibly valuable time, resources and brains on it; it also addresses the question asked earlier about retention. Of course, this is why a lot of clinicians want to be in this space, so they have time to do research as well. There are very good personal and medical reasons why they should be allowed to do that.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I should declare an interest in that my wife is receiving treatment from the Royal Marsden. Is it possible that the national statistics mask a great variation between hospitals such as the Marsden, which is absolutely top of the range, and some others? Is it worth looking at the differences and what we can learn from them?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes. Funnily enough, I was having a similar conversation just yesterday about how we can use data to really understand some of the differences in performance because, as the noble Lord said, we have all heard of some brilliant examples in our NHS hospitals and we have all heard of some other examples which, as pointed out by the ombudsman, were unfortunately not so good. Understanding those centres of excellence and those that need more help is vital.
United Kingdom: Union
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning
That this House takes note of the case for strengthening and safeguarding the union of the United Kingdom.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to open this debate on the union. I refer to my interest in the register as a constitutional adviser to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I am particularly pleased that today’s debate furnishes my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel with an opportunity to answer for the Government and to give his maiden speech. It is my privilege to have been able to call my noble friend a true friend as we have experienced the highs and lows of life as Scottish Conservatives and Unionists over the last two decades. My noble friend’s forebears as clan chief would, I am certain, have joined your Lordships’ House if not for their principled commitment to the Jacobite cause in the past. I am glad that, in the year of our Lord 2024, this objection has been overcome, not least because of the very deserved appointment of my noble friend. It seems fitting that his maiden speech will be on this never-ending question of the strength of the union. As a former Member of the Scottish Parliament, he will bring great wisdom on the issues of devolved politics to your Lordships’ House.
I am also delighted to have such a wealth of speakers in this debate from across our United Kingdom. I am sure they will bring forward a number of positive suggestions as to how to strengthen our United Kingdom in all its parts. That very much needs to be also from the English and, dare I say it, in looking forward to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, the Cumbrian perspective as well. I apologise in advance to colleagues from Wales that I will focus my remarks on Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is not to say that much of what I have to say cannot apply equally to Wales, but I wanted to concentrate on the two areas where a perceived fragility in the union is often identified—such is my sunny disposition. I am therefore very pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, who will, I am sure, help properly ensure that our debate is inclusive of Wales. I also look forward to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, who, despite the excitement of much of the London media, was actually the first female First Minister of Northern Ireland.
As a former member of your Lordships’ Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee and a former Number 10 union special adviser, I could have been tempted to discuss at length the importance of intergovernmental relations, the structures of devolution, the importance of my noble friend Lord Dunlop’s excellent review into intergovernmental relations and the essential nature of the UK Government’s programme of direct financial intervention through levelling up and other schemes, all of which I agree are absolutely necessary to maintain and make the argument for the union. However, to me, these are the physics of the strength of the United Kingdom, and today I want to talk about the chemistry.
I want to start my remarks by quoting a former Member of this House, the author and unionist MP John Buchan, later Lord Tweedsmuir, who in 1932 said:
“I believe that every Scotsman should be a Scottish Nationalist. If it could he proved that a separate Scottish Parliament were desirable, that is to say that the merits were greater than the disadvantages and dangers, Scotsmen should support it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/11/1932; col. 261.]
In this age, it is difficult to appreciate how someone whose very political identity was unionist—a unionism formed around Irish unionism—could make such a bold and seemingly contradictory assertion. However, that statement is not as contradictory as it first appears; in fact, it may offer a glimpse of how the union can be strengthened over the next 10 to 20 years.
A stocktake of the union may seem to some to be a fool’s errand from a unionist perspective when one considers the apparent, if superficial, fragility of the union in both Scotland and Northern Ireland over the last decade. In both, a demographic inevitability is often cited in favour of Scottish independence and Irish unity. In Scotland over that decade, British identity has plummeted while political nationalism has dominated the Scottish political scene. Perhaps that is soon to change, but the SNP was seemingly only strengthened by the referendum defeat in 2014. In Northern Ireland, meanwhile, the assumption that demographic change could lead to a nationalist majority seems at first glance fulfilled with the Sinn Féin primacy at the ballot box and a Sinn Féin First Minister. That is the sunny disposition coming out.
However, regarding the future of the United Kingdom in both Scotland and Northern Ireland, public opinion and party-political support should not be confused. Yes, since 2014 Scotland has been divided almost equally on the desirability of an independent Scotland, however—not to sound like the BBC—despite the foretold supposed kryptonite powers of both Brexit and my former boss Boris Johnson, that parity has not changed. Most importantly, the number of people who want an independence referendum now is less than half of those who favour an independent Scotland. Only yesterday, a poll showed that independence as a priority for Scottish voters is at its lowest level ever. It is no wonder that Nicola Sturgeon probably felt she had run out of road—as well as for various other reasons with which I shall not detain your Lordships this afternoon.
In Northern Ireland, support for Irish unity remains stubbornly stuck at 30%, with the fastest-growing demographic groups—self-identified Northern Irish and “neither unionist nor nationalist”—favouring remaining in the UK by 2:1. As we also know, the number supporting Irish unity diminishes as people consider the disruption and changed public services that would result.
Should those who support the union therefore enjoy a feeling of complacency about the continuation of the status quo? The answer is clearly no. While the current level of support for the union seems broadly stable in Scotland and Northern Ireland, in Northern Ireland most people see unity as inevitable when asked and traditional political unionism appears to be in retreat. At the same time, despite the fact that the SNP is now going through its own political travails, support for independence remains stubbornly stuck at 50%, with support among young people very high. Political uncertainty and a reaction against disruption and existential change have provided the union in Scotland and in Northern Ireland with a strategic breathing space of which the UK Government and those who support the union must take advantage. That is why John Buchan’s words in 1932 now seem so prescient: the union needs a new identity.
Born in 1875, John Buchan was the epitome of British imperial unionism. He was to serve as Governor General of Canada as well as being a unionist MP. However, if one looks at the unionism he celebrated, it was a union of diversity. In the Houses of Parliament, we see the English rose, the Irish harp and the Scottish thistle equally displayed—a display of diversity, difference and national pride. It was not some uniform symbol of British national identity that we would see, for example, in France at the same time. Even at its international height, the strength of the United Kingdom came from its diversity and not a desire for uniformity or what would now be called “muscular unionism”, where only the union flag, Britannia and related symbols can be deployed to argue for the union.
Some unionists may regret that the union is not to be saved by even more red, white and blue. They will be disappointed by what they will portray as my weak-kneed approach to the union’s cultural identity. There is, though, often a disproportionate relationship between those who did least in the 2014 Scottish referendum, when the future of our country was under existential threat, and their now fervent muscular unionism. The very idea that this approach will do anything other than alienate from the union the broadly younger and forward-looking median voters for whom the constitution is not a priority seems to me obvious. Yes, unionists must be able to celebrate their sense of Britishness as they see fit—I always will—but for the state to try to enforce a false Britishness on people who are currently, on balance, in favour of the United Kingdom would be counterproductive at best.
That means that the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland reaching out to celebrate all Northern Ireland’s identities and cultures should be celebrated, and not pilloried as we have seen over the last fortnight from some quarters. Reaching out to all communities was something that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, was a trailblazer in during her time as First Minister and it is surely the very essence of unionism. One need only look at how much damage the nationalist cause in Scotland has done to itself by using government as an extension of its narrow vision of Scottish nationalism. Unionists should rejoice that the SNP has chosen to do so. By refusing to engage with those who disagree with it or understand their views, the SNP has only helped secure the integrity of the United Kingdom. There is a lesson for all of us in this.
The danger to the union, both in Scotland and Northern Ireland, is a radicalised, nostalgic, reductive unionism of the last resort, where speaking forcefully about the union in a way that is completely disconnected from the priorities of real people does little to strengthen it. Too often, those of us who support the union assume that others see the world as we do, through that prism. A new train service to Glasgow or Cardiff, if it happens, should be celebrated by the United Kingdom Government because it improves connectivity and not because, as all too often department press officers are told to say, “It’s good for the union”. Immediately, a cynical public assume that the UK Government make an investment not for the betterment of all their citizens but for some distant and disconnected political term. Constantly using the word “union”—as we are doing in today’s debate, very helpfully—and not pursuing policies that strengthen the union does nothing other than tick a box. Supporting the union should always be about actions in real people’s lives and not political polemic. A United Kingdom responding to its people’s priorities across the United Kingdom is the very best way to secure that United Kingdom.
Of course the constitutional settlement must be upheld, and I applaud the UK Government for doing so over the recent gender reform issue in Scotland, but it should not be done for political partisanship. I find it odd that some of the most vociferous commentators concerned about the Scottish Government engaging in reserved areas did not have the same concerns when a Labour/Liberal Democrat Administration were doing exactly the same thing.
Instead, the United Kingdom should play to its strengths and go with the groove in both Scotland and Northern Ireland. That means ensuring in Northern Ireland—this will go down very well with some contributors to the debate—that the “best of both worlds” economic advantage of being in the UK and EU single markets is fully utilised. The UK Government should not be mealy-mouthed about the Windsor agreement and the return of Stormont, which has the support of the vast majority of unionists and nationalists in Northern Ireland, as evidenced only this week in Liverpool University’s Institute of Irish Studies poll.
The UK Government should be doing all they can to ensure that Northern Ireland can build on the dynamism unleashed since the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. Let us make Belfast and Derry/Londonderry the tech hubs of the UK, using all the human resource and higher education network the UK has to offer. For too long, the view of the UK Government has been that “Northern Ireland is different”. We need to properly invest the leverage that the UK has. In Scotland, we should work with the Scottish Government and local authorities to ensure that the economic leverage of the UK builds on its energy past to become the renewable superpower of the world while we maximise the continuing opportunities of the North Sea.
John Buchan would have approved of the strength of the UK being used to build and strengthen the success of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, making them ever more vibrant and successful parts of their country. These steps and this progress will then in turn make people even more risk averse to constitutional change, but in a positive, confident way—not the politics of financial transaction and “project fear”. For the union to build on its current structural stability, it needs to culturally change its attitude from fighting seeming inevitability to embracing diversity, returning to the roots of a successful and dynamic United Kingdom, where identity is not subsumed but celebrated—the chemistry complementing the physics.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow—and slightly unexpected to follow immediately —the noble Lord, Lord McInnes of Kilwinning, who has made an extremely thoughtful and valuable speech in opening this debate. I expected to follow the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and I am sorry that he has had to scratch because, as the author of a distinguished report on multiculturalism, he would have had much to contribute to this debate, I am sure. I want to contribute very briefly from a partly English perspective to this debate about the union and emphasise that we should not merely strengthen it but celebrate it.
I always feel slightly uneasy when I hear the term that has come into vogue only over the last few years of us being four nations. I have always thought of us as one nation—certainly of one union. Though membership of that union is ultimately voluntary—“the King has no unwilling subjects” is an old maxim—we should not passively say, “Well, it is up to you”. We should say, “We rejoice in the membership of all four parts of this union, which makes this union as great as it is”. Certainly, as someone who was brought up to be proud of my rather remote Scottish ancestry on my mother’s side, I know it would feel like losing a limb if Scotland were to ever leave. Although any Irish ancestry I have is even more remote, it would feel similar if Northern Ireland were to be separated from us.
Philosophers and politicians have debated what makes a nation. Certainly ideas that it could be based on some single thing like common race or even common language have long since rightly been discarded. It is a whole range of things that unite people and create a sense of being one nation or one union: common language, common religious and cultural history, and common ancestry—certainly all the historical events that go into our background and forge our memories are important. Particularly, of course, nations and unions are very often forged in war, as ours have been. The sacrifices made by people from all parts of that union in the great battles and wars of the last century unite us by sacrifice and loss of blood. No one can forget the sacrifice made voluntarily by those of Northern Ireland—and of course the huge contributions from Scotland and Wales as well as England.
Above all, Britain is unique in being bound particularly by common institutions: the monarchy, this sovereign Parliament, our common-law traditions—of course, Scotland has its own law but it is simultaneously a common law and a different tradition—which unite us in a way that few other countries can claim to be united. I did not even visit Scotland until my early 20s or Northern Ireland until my late 20s. When I did go over to Northern Ireland during the Troubles—in fact, studying the Troubles—I felt simultaneously that it was different and home. I felt I was at one with the people I met, even though I had an enormous amount to learn from them and about different traditions that prevailed there. That is why it is very different from the fact I have had a holiday home in France for nearly 40 years and have spent a month or two a year there. It is always a different country; whereas all parts of this union seem to me part of my home and the people bound to me. Much as I love France and the French, it will always be a different country.
We should celebrate our union and strengthen it but recognise too that it has an economic basis which we must not allow to be weakened by the arrangements that have been set up in the North Sea. I hope that they will be so diluted that they do not weaken it. Our job is to make this union something we all want to belong to, feel enthusiastic about and be warm towards each other—warm enough, of course, to be rude and make jokes about each other. That positive approach, that sunny optimism with which the noble Lord, Lord McInnes of Kilwinning, began the debate, is something we should all share and rejoice in.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, for introducing this debate in the style with which he has. Much of what I say—indeed, all of what I say—is operating emotionally at a similar level.
In the last few days we have lost Lord McAvoy. I want briefly to pay tribute to him. His life embodied one of the many complex trajectories characteristic of the union, in his sympathies and his background as a Labour politician in Scotland. I recall with pleasure one exchange. A few years ago Sinn Féin had issued a statement and the Labour Party—actually, the Labour Government—did not like it and he said to me, “We are very cross with Sinn Féin and now we are going to send a very low-level delegation to its party conference to indicate how cross we are”. I said, “Oh, really, Lord McAvoy?”, and he said, “Yes. Me!” We will miss him.
I remember writing in the Sunday Times in the immediate aftermath of Brexit in January 2019, when the mood at the paper in many articles—including, to a degree, my own—was to the effect that Brexit may have triumphed but might now well destroy the union. There is no question that, for example, in some of the polling at that time—indeed, I was commenting in an article on that issue—you could see the rise of support for Irish unity within Northern Ireland, and similar things were being said about Scotland. Both Northern Ireland and Scotland had, after all, voted to a very large degree against Brexit.
Things today are considerably more stable. The Royal Irish Academy polling from Dublin—the ARINS project—would seem to indicate a substantial long-term lead for the union in Northern Ireland. It is arguable that it is probably the best polling we have. Again, in Scotland, many people feel that the union has been strengthened—I will return to this—by the collapse of the leadership of the Scottish National Party.
There is a point here that is sometimes missed: the sheer complexity and misery of the debates on leaving the EU, in this House and the other place. Even the most enthusiastic supporters of Brexit acknowledge that there were difficulties that nobody anticipated, along with the miseries, the points of discussion, the anguish. There is no question about that. That ended a relationship of a few decades, but I think there is a public sense that, if you start to end a constitutional relationship that is far more detailed—lasting for 224 years in the case of Northern Ireland—the mess and anguish that will set in for the next few years will make the Brexit debate and its miseries look like a tea party. I really think that, in that strange way, the Brexit debate has not, in the end, weakened the union.
I want to make one point about the connection between Scottish nationalism and Ireland. This week, the leader of the Scottish nationalists came to London to speak at the LSE. Once again, he returned to what used to be very fashionable in Scottish nationalism: the greatness of the Irish example and what an independent Scotland could do. Up to 2007, this was called the Atlantic arc. Then Ireland went bust in 2008 and suddenly, everybody forgot the Atlantic arc and how wonderful that was. Now Ireland is again doing wonderfully well, with remarkable growth rates, so it has become permissible again for Scottish nationalism to flirt with the idea that Ireland shows it will be okay. This is regardless of the fact that the sort of economists Scottish nationalists tend to like on other issues—the big-name economists such as Krugman, Stiglitz and Piketty—are all critics of the Irish model of development, which they all regard, in a certain sense, as dubious. It is worth noting that the EU Tax Observatory’s Global Tax Evasion Report 2024, published in January, has a tone that would make any Scottish nationalist who studied it carefully realise that, whatever happens with respect to Ireland’s still extremely interesting tax policies—extremely complex and, in some people’s eyes, extremely dubious—there is absolutely no possibility that Scotland, as a new member of the EU, would be allowed to play the same game.
There is one other thing that ought to be stressed. We are proud in England that the PISA rates for educational performance have risen in the last few years, against the expected trend. So it is too with the Irish Republic. After the crash, it was told by the big American firms, “You think your education system is great? It’s not so great—you have to do better”. There was a clear, serious response to that on the part of the Irish Republic. Education is one of the mysteries of devolution: we assumed it would work well, but the performance of the devolved regions, particularly Wales and Scotland, is strikingly unimpressive. Again, if Scotland is paying attention to Ireland, the reality is that Ireland did, in one way, pull itself up by its own bootstraps.
I turn to the resolution and the very welcome return, in my view, of the functioning Good Friday institutions in Northern Ireland. After the major negotiating setbacks embodied in the 2017 joint report with the EU and the first draft of Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement, there has been a slow and steady struggle to get to the point we have finally got to and to take the poison of Brexit out of Northern Irish politics. This involved, among a number of things, insisting that the Good Friday agreement was based not on something called an Ireland economy but on the co-operation of two economies—north and south—and insisting that a harmonious east-west relationship between Belfast and London was important. Another crucial part of the international agreement is that the UK Government, being the sovereign Government, cannot leave a political community in a state of alienation.
These were the key points that lay at the heart of what has been, in one shape or another, five long years of negotiation to get these institutions up and running. People talked about Britain’s—or London’s—neglect of Northern Ireland, but this was a huge labour of patience and hard work. Even those in Northern Ireland who criticise it and believe it does not go far enough acknowledge that it was a serious attempt to deal with the problem, in so far as it could be dealt with.
There is no doubt in my mind that if, after continuing on the basis of the DUP leader having enunciated seven tests, he had then said, “No, we didn’t quite mean that; we meant something else more extensive”, it would have been disastrous for the union. He did not do that, to his credit; he said, “These are my seven tests, and we now have enough progress on those”, and he did not introduce a new agenda. There is no doubt that it would have been disastrous for the union if many Northern Ireland Catholics had continued to believe, not without reason, that the unionists had not accepted the outcome of an election result, which was under their rules, essentially, and not accepted the first Sinn Féin First Minister. It is very good that those poisons have been removed from the union, and it is now clear that it is possible to develop the politics of Northern Ireland along more progressive lines.
Finally, I find myself slightly surprised to be supporting this Motion, because I am certain that I am the only Member of your Lordships’ House who was once a member of Sinn Féin, then the Workers’ Party, and then the Democratic Left, which played a very important role in the Bruton Government in the mid-1990s and opened up contact with Belfast, which no previous Irish Government had done. I am proud of that connection and, in the aftermath of the death of John Bruton, I pay tribute to the work that he did. Without him, there would not, in my view, have been a successful negotiation of the Good Friday agreement, because trust was built up. But that has now evaporated. The trust that used to exist between leaders in Dublin and in Belfast has evaporated and needs to be radically reconstructed.
The recent referendum in Dublin, which was a startling defeat for the whole political class—the opposition as well as the governing parties—reveals that they do know even their own people. What is certain is that, if we are going to have Irish unity at any stage, it has to be based on a level of understanding between north and south. We are nowhere near that at this point. That is one reason why I am very happy to support the Motion.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bew. What he has just said about his political journey is a reflection of the complexities of Northern Ireland politics and indicates how far many people have travelled in their support for the union and their acceptance of the arrangements set out through the St Andrews agreement and, before that, the Belfast agreement, as has now been amended by the consensual approach of unionists and nationalists. I also join the noble Lord in paying tribute to the late Lord McAvoy, who I had pleasure of working with in the other place for many, many years. For obvious reasons, he did not speak very much in the Chamber, but he was the consummate politician. I remember he told me once that he was a fervent Celtic supporter, which of course did not go down so well in certain quarters in Northern Ireland. He said, “But I keep myself right—I have some shares in Rangers”. He knew how to operate very well in Northern Ireland
I also welcome the Minister to his place and look forward to hearing his maiden speech. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McInnes of Kilwinning, for initiating this debate and for the way in which he introduced it. We have had some very thoughtful contributions; I hope I do not spoil the atmosphere in any shape or form. I look forward to hearing from others today.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, spoke about what we have in common across the United Kingdom, and he is so right in that. There is a sense in which, when we travel to different parts of the United Kingdom, we feel at home in those parts, even though there are big differences in culture, attitudes, history and so on, but there is a commonality. That is why I am a believer in devolution, and always have been. When unionism had a big debate between integration and devolution, I and others in our party were strong devolutionists. We believed in having that difference reflected in a way that would allow people to have their own policies—laws, even, in certain areas—but also be bound together as part of one United Kingdom. I still believe that that is the way forward. I accept that people want to see devolution in Northern Ireland. Our point is that it should operate on a proper democratic basis that respects the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. I will maybe say a word or two about that before I conclude, as noble Lords would expect me to do.
I believe in devolution and, as has been said, that there is a difference between party-political support, in terms of unionism and nationalism, and the general support of the populace—in Northern Ireland in particular—for the union. The noble Lord, Lord McInnes, has dealt with that point. There are issues for political unionism parties in Northern Ireland in addressing that and moving it forward, and gaining more and more support at the polls.
I have no doubt that there is still a very strong majority in Northern Ireland for the United Kingdom. Some of the propaganda and arguments that are put forward are not based on reality. I see that at the St Patrick’s celebrations in the United States this week, Sinn Féin has once again taken out advertisements, as it does in St Patrick’s week, calling for an immediate border poll. Even Leo Varadkar, the Taoiseach, has debunked this and said that there is no support for it, and I am glad he has done so. But this is not the way forward; we have just restored devolution and if Sinn Féin is serious about what it says, what is it doing stirring this up in the United States? It is a completely wrong approach.
However, I will say, in terms of the Irish Republic—and the noble Lord, Lord Bew, touched on this—that there has to be respect for the basis on which we have a political settlement in Northern Ireland, and for the three-stranded approach. The internal affairs of Northern Ireland—that there is a north-south dimension and an east-west dimension—are a matter for the people of Northern Ireland, the parties and the United Kingdom Government. The UK Government need to be quite robust in defending that, and there have been recent signs of this over legacy, including the pushback against Dublin’s legal claim on the legacy legislation. This week in Washington, Leo Varadkar talked about reform of the Northern Ireland Stormont institutions, and when that should happen. With the greatest respect, that is deeply destabilising to the politics of Northern Ireland and should be robustly rebuked by the UK Government.
This debate has been very positive. In a previous speech a week or two ago in your Lordships’ House, I referenced the positivity of the union and its important advantages for the people of Northern Ireland, and our many massive contributions—for example, to the Armed Forces, and that of the Harland & Wolff shipyard to industry—to the progress of the United Kingdom and to our history. But it is important to say that there is a concern among unionists today about the Windsor Framework—the Northern Ireland protocol. There has been a consensus in unionism that it has been damaging and wrong. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said about where we are at in all of this, but there are those who are concerned that a United Kingdom should not have internal customs and trade borders within it.
The recent Command Paper contains a lot of things which in and of themselves are positive, such as the east-west council and InterTrade UK, but the reason they are there is to mitigate a fundamental problem. The Select Committee on which I have the honour to serve took evidence yesterday from Steve Baker, the Cabinet Office and NIO Minister, in which he said, “Oh no, don’t worry about the border in the Irish Sea because, if you compare it with other international borders across the world, it is not as bad as any of them—it is nothing like them”. But that is not the point; we should be comparing it with borders between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—between parts of the United Kingdom.
There is no other country that I can see which has a situation where it is divided in such a fundamental way, in terms of customs and trade, and in relation to the imposition of foreign laws by a foreign political entity in its interests, without the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland—whether they be unionist, nationalist or other—having the opportunity to make, develop and amend those laws, or even to say yes or no if there is a change in them. That has to be addressed in the long term; it is an unsustainable position. It would be remiss of us if, while talking about all the other issues in this debate, we did not highlight that point and say it is an issue that must be resolved in a satisfactory way which restores democracy and UK sovereignty to part of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to speak about the union and to listen to the experience and wisdom of my noble friend Lord McInnes of Kilwinning, whom I thank for securing this debate. I welcome my noble friend the Minister to his place on the Front Bench; he will be an asset to both the Government and this House, and I am only sorry that our gain has to be the Scottish Parliament’s loss.
I too pay tribute to Lord McAvoy, a formidable politician and doughty unionist. I used to greet him with that Glaswegian salutation, “Hoy, handsome”, to which he would give me the standard Glaswegian response, “Hello, petal”. I am going to miss him.
I take it as a given in this Chamber that there is both overwhelming support for the union and recognition of the benefits it brings. I am a Scot and I was an MSP for 17 years, a Westminster Government Whip for three years and a Defence Minister for over four years, so it is through that prism of personal experience that I view the union. I am also a member of this House’s Constitution Committee, which is currently looking at the governance of the union, so I shall not tread on its territory; let me come in under the broad umbrella of the title of this debate.
Is the union some abstract constitutional structure, defined by the devolution settlements? No, it is not. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lilley: the union is a vivant, sentient organism which connects all of us across the United Kingdom, reflected by an intricate political tapestry of a sovereign Parliament at Westminster and devolved legislatures of different political hues in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff.
Do I see devolution as I saw it when I entered the Scottish Parliament in 1999? Absolutely not. I thought then that it was a neatly defined jigsaw, part of which was marked “reserved” for Westminster, part of which was marked “devolved”, belonging to Holyrood. The temptation was to create a devolution silo: “We know what is ours and we will get on with it; Westminster, you know what is yours and you get on with it”. Now it is unrecognisably different: there are enhanced devolved powers, increased competences and, of course, the consequences of Brexit, with Northern Ireland being a particular example, as has already been so eloquently described.
I now see devolution as a distribution of powers across the union, not a cascade of powers down from one part of the union. Westminster is, of course, still a sovereign Parliament and the devolved parliaments have defined competences, but there can be no silos. I consider we need an attitude framed by constitutional partnership rather than constitutional stand-off. With that change of culture, we shall strengthen and safeguard the union. Even political regimes driven by separatism understand a positive partnership and that culture can deliver mutual benefit for their devolved territories.
Do we have the necessary engagement frameworks across the United Kingdom to facilitate a partnership attitude? The early frameworks were fairly rudimentary and they were not required to be stress-tested. At Westminster there was a Labour Government, in Cardiff a Labour Government, and in Edinburgh a Labour/Liberal Democrat Executive. The Labour boys—because mostly it was the boys—simply picked up the phone and spoke to each other, so it all worked fine. For understandable reasons, Northern Ireland was different.
Let me focus on Scotland. In 2007 it elected a devolved SNP Government with a fundamentally different political objective from the Westminster Government’s. I was leader of the Scottish Conservatives at the time, and I had to work with the minority Government to get policies I supported delivered. Alex Salmond had to work with me. I believe there was a mutual respect, a relationship born out of pragmatism. The SNP entrenched its position in 2011 with an overall majority, which led to an unsuccessful referendum. That devolved SNP incumbency starting in 2007 threw up something unexpected about political and personal relationships, which I shall shortly come to.
The frameworks that structure the intergovernmental engagement have been modernised and are very different to what we started with. Importantly, the new version includes a dispute resolution mechanism. Further than that I shall leave to the Constitution Committee and to the deliberations of this House.
What constitutes a threat to the union? Obviously, it is political parties that want separation. They are visible and their arguments audible. We can manage that political and if necessary electoral pressure—we have done it in Scotland. That is not the threat that I fear. There is a more insidious and less visible threat: failing to understand that our constitutional structures do not exist in aspic. They evolve and breathe life into devolution. They need usage and, like any machine, lubrication. Unless they are approached with sensitivity, respect and, as I argued earlier, an attitude of constitutional partnership, we may by default preside over a systemic weakening of our constitutional structures, corroding the very union that I and others so strongly support.
Knowing the threat, how do we counter it? A partial answer is the engagement frameworks and structures. The remainder of the answer, without which the frame-works and structures are meaningless, is relationships. They are the lubricant, and they are pivotal.
In the other place, the Scottish Affairs Select Committee is conducting an inquiry into 25 years of devolution. Alex Salmond gave fascinating evidence to the committee, which I shall paraphrase. As First Minister in 2007, for the short time that he overlapped with Tony Blair, he was unable to have a single conversation with him. When Gordon Brown became Prime Minister, he spoke to him on his first day in office, and the joint ministerial plenary was re-established, as were other meetings. Alex Salmond went on to say that the situation improved again under David Cameron—all of which confirms that having different political parties with deeply diverging objectives in government, whether at Westminster or in a devolved Government, is not per se a bar to relationships.
My final question—perhaps the most important—is how we construct and nurture these relationships. They need to be cross-government in the inter- governmental sense, but they can also be cross- Parliament. As an MSP, I would have welcomed more UK Government Ministers appearing before Scottish Parliament committees. They could share experience and enhance knowledge. In my opinion, Westminster committees should not be shy about reciprocating that facility. In an intergovernmental sense, from Westminster they can involve the Prime Minister, territorial Secretaries of State and Government Ministers across Whitehall, but none of this will work without personal investment in taking the time to get to know devolved counterparts and regularly engaging with them. That is how you sense and pre-empt trouble.
In the MoD, I was the Minister responsible for engagement with the devolved Governments in relation to defence issues. I had a very constructive call with Wales’s First Minister, Mark Drakeford, and very useful engagement with Minister Hannah Blythyn. For Scotland I engaged constructively with Ministers Graeme Dey and Keith Brown. We had different political objectives, but with the importance of the MoD to Wales and Scotland in terms of economic contribution, jobs and skills, we had compelling common interests to discuss, and they delivered mutual benefit. I was not interested in what rank of Minister I spoke to; all that mattered was who had the knowledge to inform our conversation. Now, for all I know, maybe Mark, Hannah, Graeme and Keith thought I was an imperious old bat—but it did not come over that way.
I had a very constructive visit to Northern Ireland last year, meeting senior civil servants and business leaders and visiting Harland & Wolff to better understand how we in the MoD could make a positive contribution to Northern Ireland in the post-Troubles era.
We are living in a new age of devolution. Partnership is not inimical to the political objectives of parties with deeply divergent views. Indeed, they are much more likely to gain respect from the electorate for demonstrating that maturity and pragmatism.
Of course, it takes two to tango. I want to see our new partnership attitude deliver devolution’s own “Strictly Come Dancing”, a ballroom swirling with facts, opinions and views, exchanging observations. If we do not work to create these relationships, we will never get asked to dance: a bunch of political wallflowers perpetuating constitutional standoff. The union deserves better; I support the Motion.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, particularly since she mentioned “Strictly Come Dancing”—I thank her for that. I declare my registered interests as the chair of Together UK Foundation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McInnes of Kilwinning, for bringing forward this debate, and congratulate him on the pronunciation of Aghadrumsee, which he has done very well. One of his colleagues has now taken to introducing me as the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of unpronounceable—which is fine.
I will talk about Aghadrumsee but, before I do, I also welcome the Minister to his place. No doubt he will reflect on his beautiful part of the United Kingdom when he speaks. I welcome him to this House as a fellow unionist and wish him well for his time on the Front Bench.
I come from what some people call the edge of the union. When I was appointed to this place, there was never any doubt as to which title I would take. Aghadrumsee is a townland near the Fermanagh-Monaghan border. In Irish it means field of the ridge of the sallows, but for me it was my whole world growing up. It was where I was baptised into the Anglican faith at our small church, St Mark’s. It was where I attended the little primary school, and where I attended children’s parties at the local Orange hall.
It is now 45 years since the IRA upset the tranquillity of my home when it came to murder my father at our home just a mile from Aghadrumsee. He was, you see, a legitimate target because he was a police officer serving in the local RUC station in Rosslea. He survived, despite the IRA’s best efforts, but as a result he was advised to move to a safer part of the country, and so we moved. This was the strategy of the IRA: to target the eyes and ears of the Brits in the area, and to move them out of the area to create a buffer zone along the border for their nefarious criminality.
My father was one of the lucky ones. He lived for another 32 years, dying at the age of 81, and is now buried at Aghadrumsee parish graveyard. My sister and her family live in our homestead. Many did not survive the sustained attack on the union, and I pay tribute to their service and dedication.
Despite its intent, the IRA did not succeed, and now the title of the little townland of Aghadrumsee—taken to honour my late father and to bring a little bit of south-east Fermanagh to Parliament—is seen on the annunciator and in the Hansard of the House of Lords. It is as much a part of the union as it ever was.
The IRA did not succeed in its terrorist campaign to take us out of the union but, despite this, republicans in Northern Ireland, and indeed in Scotland, now tell us that a united Ireland or an independent Scotland are inevitable, so we should get with the project. They even have a few useful fools, who should know better, helping them to make that claim. There is nothing inevitable about a united Ireland or an independent Scotland. Nationalists continually push this narrative, just as they claim that all the ills of society will be solved by independence. That is a comfortable belief for the followers of republicanism across the United Kingdom that allows each generation to think that with one last heave, or one last push, independence will happen. We in Northern Ireland have retained the United Kingdom against fierce opposition for more than 100 years, so the historicism or inevitability argument has not worked.
In fact, both the assertions—that all problems will be solved and that it is coming around the next corner—are nonsense, but they are allowed to gain traction. The narrative from media is that we should engage with the conversation because change is coming.
We should always push back against that narrative, and instead move to a narrative of why the United Kingdom is good for all its citizens. The opinion polls in Northern Ireland, which have been referenced, show strong support for the union, so do not be fooled by the pro-nationalist press trying to push their agenda of a united Ireland, or indeed of an independent Scotland.
Unionism for its part should not pretend to be simple but rather be multi-faceted and address many questions. Unionism, as the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, referenced rightly, is not narrow or reductionist but broad and diverse, and that is its strength. It is true that the challenges unionism faces will evolve with each generation. The benefits of the union likewise will show themselves in different ways over the years. During the pandemic, for example, we saw the strength of the union in a very practical way through the financial schemes and the rollout of the vaccinations. I was able to get my vaccination in Enniskillen at the same time as people in Devon and Cornwall. In Northern Ireland we also had the expertise and advice available to the devolved Administrations from the centre, which was vital in moving ahead.
The union and the United Kingdom is a rational political ideal, and as such the majority of people in Northern Ireland will, I believe, continue to support it—yes, for different reasons, but that is okay. Some are cultural and constitutional unionists, like myself; others are economic unionists; others, as the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, said, are just content with the status quo. As unionists, we need to understand that not everyone will vote for the union for the same reasons—the important thing is to get them to vote for the union.
For my part, I am hugely proud to be British. Our Britishness is about much more than the passport we hold. It cannot and should not be reduced to a name or a badge. It is about shared history going back generations and pride in having ended the slave trade, being the home of the Industrial Revolution, and founding the welfare state. It is about the institutions that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, has said, we cherish and are the envy of others. Our allegiance to our shared institutions—whether cultural, through the historic ties that bind us, or in wider society—also gives us that sense of togetherness that is important for our emotional connection to the United Kingdom.
When I stepped down from politics in Northern Ireland, I set up the Together UK Foundation to set out the positive value of the four parts staying together and thriving together. That foundation continues to advocate for the holistic view of the United Kingdom. We have pride in our role for good in the world, something which is tangible—not just two world wars and the struggle against communism in the past but the battle for freedom and democracy today, particularly in Ukraine.
Our place in the world is important to us in the UK, but it is also, from a defence, security and intelligence point of view, important for countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand—our allies in the Five Eyes intelligence community. If the United Kingdom was broken up by separatists, what would happen to our safety and security and that of the wider western alliance?
Recently, Policy Exchange published an excellent paper called Closing the Back Door; I commend it to your Lordships’ House. It shines a light on the strategic importance of Northern Ireland and its assets, particularly its ports, to the defence of the UK and indeed wider Europe. With Ireland as a neutral state, it is important that Northern Ireland is kept as a base for when threats occur, and that is the case made by the paper.
The union has allowed people from all parts to make a contribution in political, social and cultural life. I know that some people like to present Northern Ireland’s relationship to the rest of the UK as one of more “take” than “give”. Certainly, in an economic sense the UK has allowed the sharing of wealth and prosperity not just between people but across the country, and Northern Ireland has been a huge beneficiary of that. This pooling of resources across the UK is one of the great attractions, but it is not just about financial support, even though that is particularly important.
My belief in and support for the union does not depend on economic arguments, although it is overwhelmingly the case that we are better together. Northern Ireland’s businesses and people pay into the Exchequer like their counterparts in every part of the kingdom, but our contribution is not just about pounds and pence. It is much broader than that.
I fully support this Motion. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, for bringing it to the Floor today. Our safety, stability, security and success depend on the union. We must continue our work to safeguard it for future generations.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord McInnes of Kilwinning, on bringing forward this debate, and in advance I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the maiden speech he is about to make. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee. Two sorts of speeches are made in this sort of debate: one is, like hers, consistent, coherent, flowing and logical in argument; the other consists of vaguely relevant but disconnected points. Mine is going to be more of the latter character, so I hope noble Lords will bear with me to some extent.
My first two points are connected. We need to remember that this union we are discussing has always been a voluntary union and a union of Parliaments. What happened? Back in 1706 or thereabouts, the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland voted democratically to unify into a single Parliament. It was not a union of monarchies. The union of the monarchy had happened 100 years earlier. It was a parliamentary union, made on a voluntary and democratic basis. In 1800, the same pattern was followed in regard to Ireland. It may be objected that the Parliaments of those days were not representative of the whole population, but these were the representative bodies that functioned—full enfranchisement was not achieved until barely 100 years ago. Some things flow from that that are really quite important.
First, we do not sufficiently appreciate how unusual we are in that regard. The United States of America was a voluntary union until people tried to leave—which resulted in a civil war in which more lives were lost than the United States has lost in all the wars it has subsequently fought. Germany is a federal union, but there is no provision in the German constitution for a federal land to leave the union. The thought that part of France might leave France is an almost inconceivable thought in French mentality.
Secondly, I do not think other countries appreciate how unusual we are, and we do not really understand how they think. The response of the Spanish state to the attempt to secede in Catalonia not so very long ago—a quasi-military response on the streets followed by imprisonment and exile; the leader of that revolt is still in exile today, even though there are attempts to bring him back—is inconceivable in the United Kingdom. We have accepted, as in the Good Friday agreement, that if the people of Northern Ireland wish to vote by a majority to unite with the Republic of Ireland, that is what is going to happen. It is inconceivable that anything else would happen. There would not be the sort of response we saw in Catalonia. Similarly, although it is not subject to an international treaty, we accept that if there was a majority in Scotland for leaving the union, however sad we might be about seeing Scotland depart, as we would be for Northern Ireland, we would have to respect that decision and deal with it.
The second part of my thesis—that we are a parliamentary union—means that the deep devolution settlement that we entered into at the beginning of the 21st century was much more radical in its constitutional effects than it was presented as being at the time. It was not simply an administrative arrangement or the creation of a new tier of local government, which would be consistent with a parliamentary union; it was a breaking up of that parliamentary authority, which we have not fully incorporated into our thinking even today. We say that we regard it as a stable and enduring settlement, but it is not a stable and enduring settlement in the eyes of nationalists; in their eyes it is merely a stepping stone to something else. We must always be aware of that and stay ahead of it.
What is not the answer to our current constitutional confusion, however, is the adoption of federalism. This has been proposed by Gordon Brown as a means, he would say, of saving the union. It would not save the union; it would destroy the union as it exists and replace it with something wholly new, untested and ill thought out.
Despite all that, we remain a voluntary union that is essentially based on affection: we are attracted to each other. The fact that we choose to stay together is because of the affection that exists—not the coercion but the affection. That is our strength and what we need to build on—but none of this means that we should be insouciant about the continuance of the union.
Here I turn to the sensitive subject of language. It is a sensitive subject, but we should not be too sensitive about discussing it. There is no doubt—and Sinn Féin fully appreciates this—that the use of language is a tool for promoting nationalist sentiment. When I look at Wales and see the almost linguistic fascism that now exists in parts of it, I am deeply concerned that we will find ourselves, on some occasion in the future, in a situation rather like we were with Scotland in 2014, when, half way through the referendum campaign, we realised that unionism might lose the referendum, so out of touch we were. I do not want to see something like that happen in Wales.
Finally, I turn to Northern Ireland. There is very little for me to add to what was said by the speakers who come from Northern Ireland, but I will second what was said about the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor Framework. I speak about them from the point of view not of Northern Ireland but of the United Kingdom. It is not the trade aspects that concern me directly—they have an effect on the lives of people in Northern Ireland, which has already been addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn —but the constitutional implications of the fact that part of the United Kingdom is subject to laws made in the European Union by a foreign Parliament with no democratic say by the people who have to live under those laws. This is a classic definition of colonialism. It is a humiliation to this country that we tolerate it; I cannot think of any other democratic country that lives under such arrangements, and it is now explicitly acknowledged to be a constraint and impediment on the way in which we govern the rest of Great Britain. I believe that the Chancellor himself said only the other day that he was constrained from altering VAT rules by the fact that he was not allowed to do so in Northern Ireland, even though he had the power to do so in Great Britain, as that would create a disparity and he was prevented from making the change.
The Northern Ireland protocol was negotiated by a Government with no majority on their principal policy—the Brexit policy—and no majority in Parliament. Their principal negotiating tool, the right to walk away, had been taken away by Parliament. It is not—I second the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn— a stable arrangement; it will have to be addressed at some point if the union is to survive and if the United Kingdom is to thrive as an independent country.
Lord Godson (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord McInnes of Kilwinning for securing the debate. He is part of both the physics and chemistry of our union and, when the history of these times comes to be told, his own distinguished part in the Scottish referendum will, I hope, have a bright place in the history books. I also join other noble Lords in welcoming my noble friend the Minister, whose distinguished forebear, who has already been alluded to, was known as “the gentle Lochiel”. His courtesy in the previous Parliament in which he served was legendary in this House, but I hope that he will not be too gentle on foes of the union, whom we may be discussing today.
My purpose is to discuss the security dimensions of the union, particularly the union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The recent Command Paper made welcome reference to the defence and security aspects of the union in appendix B, relating both to the defence and strategic significance of Northern Ireland and to integrating Northern Ireland’s significant defence industries into the rest of the defence structure of the United Kingdom. It is worth taking a second to consider the historical dimensions of the Command Paper, because it is a very pro-union statement of principles. Much has been discussed about repudiating the doctrine of the Ireland economy, forged for ideological purposes—but it also goes into some depth, perhaps more than any other comparable paper, into the security dimensions.
Last December, we celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Downing Street declaration, in which the then Prime Minister John Major and the then Taoiseach, the late Albert Reynolds, forged the foundational pillar of what became the Northern Ireland peace process. Crucial to the consensus-building objectives of the agreement was the British Government’s declaration that they had “no selfish strategic interest” in Northern Ireland, thus signalling their commitment to a lasting and equitable peace on the island of Ireland. The ensuing peaceful decades have been to the lasting benefit of both sides of the Irish border and indeed across the Irish Sea—I think there is no disagreement in this House or the other House on that point.
At this moment it bears repeating—as others have pointed out before—that “no selfish strategic interest” never meant “no strategic interest at all” for the United Kingdom Government. Indeed, Northern Ireland has always retained vital strategic importance to the United Kingdom. As we find ourselves in an ever more dangerous and sharpening international climate, we must question whether the present security arrangements on the island of Ireland, on both sides of the border, now pose a wider threat to British security.
I think that almost all of us in this House are rightly focused on supporting Ukraine’s gallant self-defence on the European continent as Russia seeks alternative means of weakening our collective security in NATO and wider Europe. In the pursuit of asymmetric advantages against Ukraine’s backers—ourselves included —the Kremlin is probing the critical undersea infra- structure that, by carrying our digital communications and energy flows, undergirds our security and prosperity. Russia makes no secret of its ambitions in that regard. It has a military doctrine, known as SODCIT, for degrading the West psychologically and materially by targeting our critical infrastructure and that of other friendly countries. Suspicious incidents in recent years, such as successive cable cuttings in the Baltics last year, suggest that those fears may not be unwarranted.
Defence of this infrastructure is necessarily a collective effort, and the UK and its partners have rapidly bolstered their joint capabilities. That was most recently witnessed in the UK-led Joint Expeditionary Force’s maiden seabed warfare mission, conducted by nine NATO member states across the north Atlantic this past January.
However, it needs to be said that the Republic of Ireland is still not playing its part but rather chooses to continue to freeload on the security guarantees of others. Although some 75% of the undersea fibre optic cables linking Europe to the United States pass through Irish waters, the Irish Naval Service remains entirely ill equipped to police and protect them. It lacks the radar and the acoustic monitoring systems for satisfactory maritime situational awareness, it remains without a fleet of underwater surveillance vessels and it suffers from a chronic staffing shortage which renders just one-quarter of its fleet serviceable at any given moment.
Although the Republic is now slowly engaging with more EU multilateral defence initiatives, it still does not participate in the one tasked with critical seabed infrastructure protection, and it is hard for many of us to understand why. Perhaps it is because it has little else to offer. As damage to this critical transnational infrastructure harms our national security, we must ask what we need to do to mitigate the risk. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee —I hope I am the victor ludorum for the correct pronunciation of her townland—for saying that we have to consider what remains to be done. I am grateful for her tribute to Policy Exchange’s work on our paper Closing the Back Door: Rediscovering Northern Ireland’s Role in British National Security.
One of the solutions is to restore the United Kingdom’s naval and air presence in Northern Ireland by rebuilding our capabilities for maritime patrol in the Atlantic, perhaps in Londonderry, which played such a definitive role in allied victory in the Battle of the Atlantic and in our operations in the Cold War—as has been attested to by the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, who was briefly here earlier and who I think served there early on in his naval career. The UK must use any such revived facilities to deter future Russian snooping around undersea cables and pipelines.
I note with pleasure that, whatever the various opinions within unionism over the recent Windsor Framework, this is one area which unites all shades of unionist opinion. The recent exchanges between the right honourable Sammy Wilson MP and the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in the House of Commons and between the right honourable Jeffrey Donaldson MP and the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Questions indicate the tremendous potential for such a revived role for UK national security and defence structures in Northern Ireland.
There is a further dimension to our national security concerns on the island of Ireland: the growing Russian, Chinese and Iranian presence in the Republic. The soft border—a consequence of the common travel area, a core element of the British-Irish relationship—raises the prospect of a “back-door” threat to the rest of the United Kingdom. Russia has long viewed the Republic as a strategically positioned hub for its clandestine intelligence activity in Europe. In 2022, the Russian embassy in Dublin reportedly had 30 members of staff, second only in size to its embassy in Washington DC. While the Irish Government subsequently expelled four Russian agents masquerading as diplomats, there are concerns that Moscow has implanted illegal espionage networks which are far harder to trace.
Furthermore, in 2015 Russia successfully applied for planning permission to vastly expand its Dublin embassy, with a new underground operational “nerve centre”. It was only after the proposal came under media scrutiny that in 2020 the Government of the Republic intervened to revoke that permission on national security grounds at the behest of allies. Links between Irish organised crime and Iranian-backed terrorist organisations are also well established. Some of them are currently under investigation by the United States Administration for assisting in the illegal financing of Hezbollah and Iran.
Meanwhile, we know through the comprehensive report of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament last year that China is engaged in an expansive array of interference activities inside the United Kingdom. The markers are there that it is employing the same tactics in the Republic. Chinese investment is soaring, which has forced the Irish Government to introduce additional screening measures. At last count, there were 13 Confucius Institutes in Irish educational institutions, known to be controlled by the Hanban organisation which is affiliated to the Chinese Communist Party. A so-called Chinese police station in Dublin was shut down two years ago. The target of these is not any individual country, but the systems which service the transatlantic community, ourselves and the order which all that infrastructure upholds. Amid all this, fears are mounting that the Irish security agencies are overstretched, a concern raised by the independent Commission on the Irish Defence Forces set up by the Irish state in 2022.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, for introducing this debate and offer my congratulations to the Minister. I do not think anybody with any sense of history can fail to be affected by the penumbra of Scottish Jacobitism which surrounds him. I hope he will accept my congratulations as an English Hanoverian borderer. One of my family was the Bishop of Carlisle at the time of the Forty-five, who recorded in his diary that in early 1746 he went up to Carlisle to see his successor hanged. I do not know what the Bishops’ Benches would think about that sort of thing these days.
I am a unionist because I believe the union is and can continue to be to the material economic, cultural and social advantage of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, individually and taken together. It gives added value. However, as a number of noble Lords have said, it is not an inevitability and has no guarantee for eternity. It must work to survive.
I will approach this debate from the perspective of the county of Cumbria, which is the most economically self-contained area in England. I have lived my life there. I am hefted to it, as we say. I chair the local enterprise partnership, I am the vice lord-lieutenant and I represented it in the European Parliament for 10 years. In my capacity as chair of the LEP, I arranged for the commissioning on its behalf of an analysis prepared by Metro Dynamics of the possible impact of an independent Scotland on our bit of the north-west of England. It probably speaks volumes about my political acumen that it was delivered on the day that Nicola Sturgeon resigned as First Minister.
Perhaps hardly surprisingly, it pointed out that such a step was very likely to damage the county’s economy, but it subsequently emerged from the discussion that the implications would almost inevitably be similar if some of the proposals for devo-max and greater regional devolution took place in England. We reached the conclusion that that might equally disadvantage us and damage our economy. It is further English devolution that, in today’s political climate, seems more probable to me. I do not believe that the union means homogenous rules over the piece, as a number of noble Lords have said. Rather, I believe in and subscribe to the desirability of local decision-making and local ways of delivering policies, tailored to the communities in which they are intended to take effect. It should be local electorates who hold those decision-makers to account.
Yet the context here appears to be that, unless there are some compensating measures, economic damage may be visited on some of the economically weaker and less resilient parts of England as part of that wider process. Do not get me wrong: it is not as if Cumbria is on its knees—it is not. In a variety of ways, it has a great deal going for it, but there are a number of pockets of real deprivation outside the orbits of BAE Systems and Sellafield where the economy performs less well and productivity is below the national norm. We need to be clear that this economy suffered significantly from Covid and Brexit and that the evolution of greater devolution/the independence of Scotland and various possible forms of devolution in northern England, which might be of economic benefit to others, does not look as if it will be a help to us.
We also know that the Barnett formula, as it has evolved, works less beneficially for those areas which have many similar characteristics to Scotland but happen to be in England. In the context of the economic characteristics of this area over the last 50 years, Cumbria, as part of the north, suffered from the mid-20th-century collapse of traditional industries. They have not been fully substituted with the new ones, which principally took root and were turbocharged by the European single market in the south of England. On top of that, we suffered from Treasury policies that got in the way of the full implementation of the European structural funds because they were not implemented in Britain quite as they were on the continent because of the rules about budget rebate.
Levelling up, which is a great catchphrase, has been a bit of a disappointment, possibly because it was oversold to perhaps over-sanguine people who were seduced by electoral rhetoric. What is needed is a recalibration of the economic relations between this and other similar parts of England and the centre in London, given the changes that are anticipated in Scotland and a number of other places in the wider north which are distinct from this particular area. For example, traditional cost-benefit analysis in the centre shortchanges big areas with low populations and low productivity. This is ironic, since increased productivity and output is exactly what is needed to bring about central government policy aspirations. This has been the subject matter of central government consideration.
I also want to ask the Minister about the Government’s proposals for the Borderlands initiative—I am a member of its economic forum. The Scottish side of this unique and worthwhile Anglo-Scottish initiative gives the impression of being more proactive than its English opposite number, although I am not clear how much real enthusiasm there is for it from either Whitehall or Edinburgh. I would be very grateful if the Minister could reassure me about these things.
The purpose of these comments is not parochial; rather, the issue is systemic. There is a real risk that, as proposals for various forms of devolution and domestic autonomy within the United Kingdom as a whole proceed, there will be collateral damage elsewhere in the country—possibly in those areas which are in the greatest economic difficulty. The UK Government need to recognise this and commit to responding fairly to that if it occurs.
Finally, will the Government unequivocally commit to doing just that? It really matters that all parts and components of the union are treated fairly and even-handedly, because fairness of that kind is the glue that is needed to keep the union together and to strengthen it, as the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, so lucidly advocated in his opening remarks.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this important and timely debate and, like every other speaker, thank my noble friend Lord McInnes of Kilwinning for bringing this topic to the Floor of your Lordships’ House and for the way in which he so eloquently made the case for why the union of the United Kingdom must always remain at the forefront of our thinking. I welcome my noble friend Lord Cameron to his place at the Dispatch Box and look forward to hearing from him in due course.
The union of the United Kingdom has been forged through centuries of shared history and culture. Today, the union represents a mosaic of identities and traditions of a united people who are bound together under one flag, in peaceful union, for the greater good. This union has endured domestic trials and tribulations and international wars and conflicts. It has endured, as it is a union that is built on the shoulders and sacrifices of an ever-resilient people who have adapted and evolved to the changing tides of time.
Today, we face immense global insecurity. We have wars waging in Europe, instability in the Middle East and global economic uncertainty. We cannot afford to underestimate the gravity of these challenges and the potential issues that may lie ahead. Against this backdrop of global uncertainty, when it comes to our national security there is not a clearer case for why the nations of our union are stronger together, and we must continue to make this case. The illegal war that has been waged by the Russian state against the people of Ukraine demands that we must now focus on strengthening our internal security arrangements to ensure that we are able to stand up against the aggression of rogue states.
As an island nation, our history tells us that our first line of security is the waters around us. We must now ensure that our naval capacity and capability is equally distributed around the shores of the union. With Russia and other aggressors posing a threat to the western approaches of the British Isles, so eloquently explained earlier by my noble friend Lord Godson, now is the time for the Government to expand our naval and air presence in Northern Ireland. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that it is time for us to look at an enhanced, one-union approach to national security? Can he comment on the need for the Government urgently to reconsider the role that Northern Ireland plays in the wider defence and security of the United Kingdom?
I raise this point, as have the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lord, Lord Godson, in considering a report published recently by Policy Exchange, Closing the Back Door: Rediscovering Northern Ireland’s Role in British National Security. It highlights why we cannot be reliant on the Republic of Ireland for the defence and security of the Irish Sea and our own national security. As others have done, in drawing this report to the attention of your Lordships’ House, it is worth highlighting the grim reality that, after years of underfunding, the Republic’s defence forces are wholly inadequate to face up to the challenges that we face today. With this in mind, it is vital that we consider an enhanced security role for Northern Ireland in the immediate future.
Some will argue that the Good Friday agreement necessitates that we have a separate approach to security in Northern Ireland. I remind your Lordships’ House that the agreement acknowledges the need for security co-operation across the entirety of the UK. If ever there was a time to strengthen and equalise that co-operation, it is now. An enhanced security role for Northern Ireland, built on trust and mutual respect, has the ability to strengthen the fundamental principles of the Good Friday agreement while ensuring the security of our United Kingdom. I therefore politely request that my noble friend the Minister, if he has not done so already, considers the recommendations made in the report. If the Government are serious about wanting to strengthen and safeguard the union, we need a one-union approach to defence and national security.
The union of the United Kingdom is not merely a political arrangement that has withstood the test of time. Foremost it is our security guarantee. It is a union of people who, while being distinctly different, can come together in heart and mind for these principles. This makes us collectively a force and a beacon for good in an ever-dangerous world. We should and must do more to promote this. It is our duty, as the custodians of the union, to move heaven and earth to ensure that the union of the United Kingdom is strengthened for generations to come. I am assured that this Government remain committed to that duty.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord McInnes of Kilwinning for securing this debate and welcome my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel to the Front Bench for his maiden speech. I express my regard for the late Lord McAvoy, who was always the most congenial and approachable of colleagues in this House.
If we want a stable and sustainable union then we require a stable and sustainable devolved settlement. It was helpful to hear from so many noble Lords of Northern Ireland, because their experience of devolution goes much deeper than that of those of us from Scotland and Wales.
It is worth remembering that Northern Ireland had a devolved Parliament for 50 years, up until 1972, and managed during that time without either a territorial office or a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. During that period, the sovereign Parliament at Westminster exercised a self-denying ordinance: although a sovereign Parliament, it did not seek to interfere in the domestic affairs of Northern Ireland, although, from time to time, it was sorely tempted. And that reflects other developments at the time, one of which was the Statute of Westminster in 1931, where this sovereign Parliament declared that it would no longer legislate for the Dominions. Just a few years later, in the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, it was argued that the sovereign Parliament could and would continue to legislate for the Dominions. The then Lord Chancellor responded, somewhat dryly, “That might reflect the legal theory of sovereignty, but it does not reflect political reality”. Today’s devolved settlements must reflect political reality.
In 2016, we passed Section 1 of the Scotland Act that stated that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government would be permanent features of our constitutional settlement. The theory of sovereignty tells us that this Parliament could depart from that, but we know political reality is different. That brings me on to the condition of the present devolved settlement and a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, about the impact of Brexit. Nobody designed the devolved settlement for Scotland or Wales with Brexit in mind. Nobody anticipated the reshoring of vast legislative rights and obligations in both devolved and reserved areas. We find it very difficult to cope with those events, and the consequence was that what we refer to as the Sewel convention became something flexible. We began to see primary legislation passing without legislative consent Motions from either Scotland or Wales. We saw secondary legislation increasing, which is not subject to the Sewel convention, and we saw the use of Henry VIII clauses that again are not subject to the convention. All this undermined people’s belief in the sustainability and stability of the devolved settlement.
To address that, I suggest that one step we should take is the abolition of the Sewel convention and the substitution of it with a very clear and unambiguous provision that states that this Parliament will not pass legislation in devolved areas without the express consent of the devolved legislatures. That would give us stability, sustainability and a safer union.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I agree with the noble and learned Lord. My point can be put much more succinctly. I warmly welcome the Minister and look forward to his remarks, and would be grateful if he could convey to the Leader of the House the point that I am about to make.
As a Scottish unionist, I believe that our debates in this Chamber would be much improved if the SNP took part. I would also, of course, like to hear from Sinn Féin, but I know how unrealistic that is. However, the SNP is in the other place and makes an important contribution there; its objections to being here must therefore be of a different nature from Sinn Féin’s and are possibly less adamantine.
A dozen years ago, a group of us from all sides of the House wrote to the then Prime Minister suggesting that this issue should be raised with the First Minister in Edinburgh. The then Prime Minister decided not to pursue that initiative, and it might have gone nowhere, though in fact the pitch had been very well rolled in Edinburgh. I think, with the changes of personnel in London and Edinburgh, it would be worth trying again, and I ask the Minister to consult the Leader of the House and consider whether, on a cross-party basis, the suggestion might be revived.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful the noble Lord, Lord McInnes of Kilwinning, for securing this debate, which has afforded us the opportunity to examine the state of our union.
Before I carry on, I will add my tributes to Lord McAvoy. He was the Labour Chief Whip when, 10 years ago, I became a Lib Dem whip. I must admit that he terrified me until I began to understand his sense of humour—which was a really different sense of humour.
We have had a fascinating, informative and wide debate and it has been good to hear voices from across the UK, from Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and the north-west of England. Before I bring some comments from Wales, I will highlight two or three speeches that I have heard today. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, for his reference to Wales so that we did not feel left out; and his emphasis on the fragility of the union because of the situations in Scotland and Ireland was an excellent analysis of the situation in both nations. He did say that, in opinion polls, 50% of people are still in favour of independence in Scotland and I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that it is a pity that those voices are not represented in this Chamber—we need to see and hear them.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, for the lesson in the pronunciation of her home town—I hope I attempted it rightly—and for her really moving speech about her background, her father being a police officer and his shooting resulting in them having to move house. This of course was the background to her setting up the organisation Together UK. I thank her for that speech; it was wonderful.
I will also comment on the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I really object to the term “language fascism” and I thank Members in the Chamber for their response to that comment. People fail to understand that Wales is a bilingual nation, and people have the right to use their first language, whichever language that is, or both languages, if they want to.
I will now turn to the subject of the debate. From my point of view, and perhaps from many people’s point of view, the United Kingdom’s greatest weakness is that it is an unequal, or asymmetric, union. We are union of four nations: three smaller nations and one which is much larger in terms of land mass, population, wealth and political power. And each nation has a different vision for the future of its people. But it is in the area of political power, however, that the disparity between the four nations became increasingly obvious. For many of us in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, there was a desire to see government from a dominant and distant London replaced by a Government in our own country.
The first 20 years of devolution and our National Assembly brought a feeling of relative stability, for possibly two main reasons. First, the area of north Wales and the valleys qualified for EU funding because its GDP was among the lowest in the regions of the European Union. Secondly, and most importantly, the Welsh Government and consecutive UK Governments worked collaboratively to honour the Sewel convention and protect the Welsh devolution settlement. I concur fully with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, when he spoke in the gap.
All that changed with the 2019 election. The new Government’s desire to strengthen the union and bind it together led to a more cavalier approach to the Sewel convention and to increasing financial and work pressure on the devolved Administration as they struggled to defend their settlement, all resulting in a fraught, fractured relationship between the two Governments. Engagement between the UK Government and the devolved Administration at ministerial level became less frequent, and of great concern to Members in this House and in the Senedd. It is clear that, if the relationship between the nations of the UK is to be strong, it must be based on mutual respect and co-operation. The leadership for that must come from the strongest nation. Constant attacks on the powers of the devolved Parliaments are counterproductive and give rise to resentment and sometimes enmity.
As your Lordships’ Constitution Committee report, Respect and Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st century, pointed out,
“the failure to develop a modern form of ‘shared governance’ which recognises central and devolved governments have distinct statutory responsibilities that often intersect, has undermined the strength of the Union”.
Do the UK Government have plans to develop such a modern form of shared governance, or do they have any other plans to develop the union in future?
The Welsh Government have indeed considered the future, and a recent report of the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales included 10 recommendations for reform which focused on both strengthening and protecting devolution. The report included an analysis of three options for the constitutional future of Wales:
“enhanced devolution, Wales in a federal UK, and an independent Wales”.
It concluded that “each option is viable” and that
“each offers strengths and weaknesses, risks and opportunities”.
As a Liberal Democrat, my preference, of course, would be for a federal system whereby power is devolved to the regions of England as well as to the three devolved nations. We really do need to solve the “English question”. England has no Parliament of its own, and its county councils, many of which represent areas larger than Wales, do not have the executive power our devolved Parliaments have—another disparity which will require attention over time.
I will end by referring to the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Bew. He reminded us that during the Brexit campaign, there were thoughts that Brexit might well destroy the union. It actually showed how difficult it is to leave the union. That is a lesson we all need to take from this: that it is difficult to leave the union. Perhaps, the words used during the campaign—as a Remainer, I would remember this—that we are “stronger together”, might apply here too.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys; her comments on strengthening and protecting devolution were thoughtful and very helpful. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, for securing this debate, and echo his words of welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, whose maiden speech I look forward very much to hearing.
This has been a helpful and interesting debate. Our union is precious to many of us. For some, that is because of our shared historical ties, common bonds and family ties. For others, there is an economic reality that we are more prosperous as a united group of nations. We believe in and respect our differences and our often-overlapping identities, and think that by pooling aspects of our sovereignty, we are better off and more secure. Prosperity, security, and opportunity: that is the promise of our union.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, invited us to celebrate the union, sharing his personal affection for it, but I would say that we must guard against the perception of support that relies too heavily on—how can I put this—a whimsical historical reference, as this can be at times alienating to some. I think the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, warned us of that in his introduction.
Most speakers in this debate have referred, at least in part, to the risks or threats we face, and they are right to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, reminded us of the importance of public service delivery and demonstrating continual improvement. His analysis of the improving situation in Northern Ireland was positive; I hope that can be sustained. I warmly thank him for his kind words about Lord McAvoy, which were echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Baronesses, Goldie and Lady Humphreys. I did not know Lord McAvoy as well as many noble Lords did, and I really feel, having listened to their comments this afternoon, that I missed a treat. I am sad about that.
As many have said, our union must never be taken for granted or assumed to have a God-given right to exist. Respect and care must be taken, especially by the UK Government. The call by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for an attitude of partnership was spot on. Her insight about respect, pragmatism and the importance of personal political relationships was valuable and very well made. It is sensible to acknowledge that the past decade has presented its challenges. Brexit, nationalism and, at times, the approach of the UK Government have all put the union under stress. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, reminded us that independence is not inevitable—of course she is right about that—but neither is the safeguarding of the union, hence this debate.
I was sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, refer to “linguistic fascism” in Wales. I invite him, gently and with a great deal of respect, to consider his use of language and whether the tone that he deployed in that remark, which I think could be perceived as high-handed, serves in the longer term to strengthen or weaken the union. He referred to Gordon Brown. The central tenet of Gordon Brown’s report for the Commission on the UK’s Future is that our constitutional arrangements and our economic success are inextricably connected. He points out that the UK is one of the most politically and economically centralised countries in Europe. This leaves us stuck with great inequality between different regions and an economy that is less competitive.
Whitehall has failed to manage relations with the devolved Administrations well, sometimes interfering in areas it should not, while at other times pursuing a rather laissez-faire approach when agreed UK-wide joint approaches would have been much more effective. The UK’s different Governments have to work together. This is what the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, referred to as the physics of the union. It is widely recognised that the present Joint Ministerial Committee system has long struggled to be effective and has virtually been allowed to fail under the present Government. At the same time, there are no mechanisms for the voices of the cities and regions of England to be heard at the centre. The UK needs new and much more effective mechanisms for co-operation between regions and nations. These must respect local and regional voices as well as those of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Sadly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, reminded us, there is a sense in the devolved Administrations that the UK Government have at times been happy to ride roughshod over devolution and do not trouble themselves over disrespecting convention. During the passage of the EU withdrawal Act in 2020, the UK Government overrode the Sewel convention but said at the time that it was a singular, specific and exceptional necessity. The problem is that the Government have proceeded to breach Sewel subsequently without even seeking to offer a justification. This is not a recipe for a strong union. For example, the shared prosperity fund, the levelling up fund and the widening levelling-up agenda have left the Welsh Government excluded from any meaningful involvement in the decision-making processes for these funds. Engagement between the UK Government and the Welsh Government was, it appears, superficial, late and limited in scope. Return of control of these elements of economic devolution to the Welsh Government, where it belongs, would be an important first step in improving this situation.
The decision to bypass Ministers in the Welsh Government is an overt and deliberate disregard by the UK Government of the constitutional settlement approved by the people of Wales in successive referenda and opens the door to progressive, incremental repeal of the devolution settlement with no debate and no consent from the people of Wales. Support for the union cannot be a thing of romance or nostalgia. It is about making sure that every citizen benefits and that power, wealth and opportunity are shared. As support for the union waxes and wanes, it is vital that those who believe in it and think it the best way to secure the future of all regions and nations continue to make the case for it. That is how the union will be protected, not for its own sake but for the sake of all those whom it exists to serve and protect.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Cameron of Lochiel) (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a very great honour for me to be standing here before your Lordships and to be delivering my maiden speech in a debate secured by my noble friend Lord McInnes of Kilwinning. I thank him not just for his guidance in the past few weeks but for his stalwart service to Scotland and the United Kingdom in this past decade—service that has been far more pivotal than many people realise. I also express gratitude to my two noble kinsmen who acted as supporters at my introduction last week, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. Having turned back with the rest of the Jacobite army at Derby in 1745, it has taken Clan Cameron only another 279 years to reach the capital. To the noble Lord and my noble friend, to Black Rod, to the Clerk of the Parliaments, to the doorkeepers and to many others who have given me invaluable assistance, my heartfelt thanks.
I believe it is customary before turning to the substance of the debate to say a few personal words. In terms of my own career, having studied history at university, I practised law in Scotland as an advocate, before being elected in 2016 to represent the Highlands and Islands in the Scottish Parliament. That too was a great honour as an MSP representing my home region—a place of wild and staggering beauty but inhabited by communities often challenged with depopulation, lack of connectivity and a frail local economy.
The task for any elected representative is of course to try to improve the lives of people within those communities. As someone who has now been given the huge privilege of serving as a Minister, the question for me becomes: what can government do to assist in that endeavour? Perhaps the answer lies in the islands of the west, if your Lordships might allow me to explain. If one travels along the main road that runs up the spine of the Western Isles, one uses a number of small stone causeways to make one’s way from island to island—causeways that many would never notice, given the majestic views offered on all sides, framed in the ever-changing light for which those islands are renowned. But those slight structures are important in the long, rich story of the Hebrides, and the tides of history that brought cultures and peoples to and from their shores: Gaels from Ireland, Vikings from Norway—waves of men and women sweeping in and sweeping out.
It was the last ebbing away of people from the islands in the 20th century as a result of eviction, world war and emigration that pre-empted the causeways’ construction. Quietly, steadily, they were built from the 1940s onwards in a bid to stem depopulation, linking tiny, fragile communities and so ending the isolation of centuries. That was a small accomplishment at the very edge of this country, achieved amid the crashing waves of the Atlantic and the cry of the oystercatcher, and far removed from the cut and thrust of metropolitan politics here in the capital.
However, those causeways are just as much part of our great country as the busy thoroughfares of London, and they represent one example of what government should be doing everywhere; namely, building the causeways for our citizens to walk safely over, both literally and metaphorically. A Government should connect their citizens and communities and allow them to realise their own potential. A Government should enable and empower, end isolation and ensure that every citizen feels entirely connected to, and part of, our joint efforts. No man is an island, indeed.
I turn to the substance of today’s important debate, which also supplies one argument for the union, and the role of the United Kingdom Government in strengthening that union by connecting the nations of the UK through strategic interventions, and thus bridging the gaps between us. It will not surprise your Lordships to hear me say that this Government have few higher priorities than strengthening and protecting our enduring union. In a moment, I will respond to various issues that have been raised here today, but I will begin by setting out why our union is of course worth safeguarding.
This Government believe that each part of the UK is stronger by being part of it, and the UK is stronger because of the immense contribution of each of its nations. When we work together as one United Kingdom, we are safer, stronger and more prosperous. We are better able to draw on the institutions that unite us, including our Armed Forces, our common social security safety net and our National Health Service, and we are better able to tackle the big problems, from supporting families with the cost of living to leading the international response to Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine. The UK Government are committed to delivering on the issues that matter most to citizens: driving down inflation, growing our economy and maintaining the UK’s energy security.
In the UK, our internal market is the basis on which thousands of businesses are able to trade freely across the whole of the UK, minimising red tape and maximising opportunities. In Scotland, for example, the majority of outgoing trade is with the rest of the UK, more than with the rest of the world combined. I firmly believe that the UK provides the best platform for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England to thrive.
This Government are steadfast in our mission to level up all parts of the UK. To date, UK government investment in levelling up across the country has included over £3 billion of direct investment in Scotland, more than £2.5 billion for Wales—plus a further £500 million to secure the future of Port Talbot’s steel industry—and just over £1 billion for Northern Ireland.
In practice, levelling up means working with local partners across the UK to regenerate our town centres and high streets. I am delighted that last week the Chancellor announced £20 million over 10 years for a further 20 towns across the UK as part of the long-term plan for towns. Those towns include Arbroath, Peterhead and Kirkwall in Scotland, Rhyl in Wales, and Derry/Londonderry and Coleraine in Northern Ireland.
Levelling up also means spreading opportunity more equally across the country, be it funding the first fully licensed UK spaceport in Shetland, committing £2 million to boost global investment and trade in Northern Ireland or launching an agri-food launchpad to grow innovation clusters across mid and north Wales.
The Government are proud of our work with the devolved Governments. In that spirit, we welcome the return to power sharing in Northern Ireland and the positive impact that the re-establishment of the Northern Ireland Executive will have—a point I will return to in a moment.
This Government are also proud and respectful of the devolution settlements, which strike the right balance between allowing decisions to be taken closer to the communities that they affect, while still benefiting from the shared resources of the United Kingdom. I am delighted that, over the course of the debate, your Lordships have recognised and highlighted this important balance. I am particularly grateful for the contributions from those with experience of each of the devolved legislatures. I pay tribute to the experiences of my noble friend Lady Goldie and the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee and Lady Humphreys.
My view, from almost eight years as a Member of the Scottish Parliament, is that the significant powers that each of our devolved institutions possesses provide great opportunity to deliver on behalf of people in every corner of the UK. In my career, I have been proud to play my part in a number of initiatives; for example, promoting the Gaelic language as a part of the shared heritage of people in the Highlands and Islands and beyond.
People across this country rightly expect their Governments to work together, dedicating attention and resources to the issues that matter to them, their families and their communities. The UK Government engage with the devolved Governments regularly in a variety of ways, including through the formal intergovernmental machinery. Since the beginning of 2023 alone there have been more than 200 ministerial meetings between the UK and devolved Governments, underpinned by constant official-level engagement. In the very short time that I have been a Minister, I have already seen that at first hand.
This Government are committed to making devolution work by conducting positive and effective working across all levels of government, using the respective levers at our disposal to deliver the best possible outcomes for people, businesses and communities, and to tackle the challenges we collectively face. Such collaborative working is at the heart of important initiatives such as freeports, city and growth deals, and investment zones.
In relation to the last of those, the UK Government are also committed to engaging, via the east-west council, on the scope to extend Northern Ireland’s enhanced investment zone benefits to the Stranraer/Cairnryan area in Scotland, recognising this vital union connectivity route and boosting growth. In my experience, we are at our strongest when we work together, delivering on the priorities that matter the most to people across the UK.
I will now respond to some of the very important points raised today. Following a former Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, the former director of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and a former party leader in Scotland, this is very much like a trip down memory lane. They are all prominent figures in my past, which is intimidating and reassuring in equal measure.
I begin with my noble friend Lord McInnes of Kilwinning and thank him for his very kind words. In his powerful and incisive speech, he cited John Buchan and the contradiction between unionism and nationalism —perhaps that provided a template for the future of the union. He is correct; the union is one of diversity. I suggest that the union flag itself reveals that; with its jarring symbols and clash of colours, it operates in the plural not the singular. Having said that, as he accepted and I think we all acknowledge, we of course celebrate the crucial UK-wide institutions and our British identity, and we adhere to those.
My noble friend Lord Lilley was the first of many English voices in this debate. It is so welcome to hear those voices because they have traditionally been quieter than those of the slightly louder Celtic contingent. He was right to celebrate the union. He spoke about the range of things that unify us: language, culture, history, ancestry and, perhaps most powerfully, sacrifice in war. My noble friend also spoke about the need to be positive and enthusiastic and to celebrate the union.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew, spoke about the upheaval of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union and how much greater an impact sundering a much older union would have—how right he is. He spoke about being careful about using Ireland as a model for an independent Scotland, especially in economic analysis. On behalf of the UK Government, I say that we of course welcome the return of the Executive and devolved government in Northern Ireland, after two years without an Administration. This deal has ensured that power sharing is up and running again, as people in Northern Ireland want and need.
The Government still provide the Executive with an unprecedented £3.3 billion spending settlement, with a new approach to support stability, prosperity and sustainable public services. This underlines Northern Ireland’s integral place in our union, fulfilling the Acts of Union and affirming that we will not countenance any diminution in that position without consent. Lastly, it safeguards the UK internal market, guaranteeing unfettered access for Northern Ireland firms and supporting trade across the United Kingdom, enabling all parts of the UK to benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, spoke about his belief in devolution and made an important distinction between party-political support for the union and the support of the populace for the union. He asked for the UK Government to be robust. I reassure him and will give a brief exposition of the UK Government’s position on Northern Ireland’s place in the union. In accordance with the Good Friday agreement and the principle of consent, Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK for as long as its people wish. The Government recognise and respect the legitimacy of different constitutional ambitions, as long as they are pursued peacefully and democratically, and we are steadfastly committed to upholding the Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions. None the less, this Government are proud of Northern Ireland’s place in the union. We firmly believe that Northern Ireland has the best of both worlds, with the Northern Ireland Executive backed by the support and strength of the UK Government.
The agreement is explicit that any change to the constitutional position of Northern Ireland would require the consent of a majority of its people, and there is no clear basis to suggest that a majority of people in Northern Ireland presently wish to separate from the United Kingdom. The overwhelming consensus in Northern Ireland, rather like in Scotland, is that it needs a strong Executive or Government to deliver on the issues that really matter to people day to day—health, jobs, the cost of living and education—and that will remain our focus.
My noble friend Lady Goldie has long experience in the Scottish Parliament, and serving as a Minister in the UK Government here in your Lordships’ House. She posed various questions that she answered using this experience and expertise. I will reflect on them more broadly. The theme underlying her contribution was partnership and personal relationships, and I reassure her that they exist in government. There has been mention of the intergovernmental relations review, which proposed various levels of engagement. In my few short weeks at official level, I have seen that working as a reality. I also point out to my noble friend initiatives that the UK Government have brought forward such as the Islands Forum. Personal relationships are key, as she said, and, from a personal perspective, having been in the Scottish Parliament with colleagues who serve as Ministers in the Scottish Government, I hope I can play a small part in fostering those relationships.
The noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, gave me a warm welcome, for which I thank her. She spoke about her part of the world in Fermanagh, and that reminded me that, as an MSP, I would often drive down the Kintyre peninsula to Campbeltown and be able to gaze across to the Northern Ireland coast, a visible reminder that the Scottish highlands and Northern Ireland are close physically, geographically, emotionally, culturally and politically. There are so many ancient links between our two parts of the world.
The noble Baroness spoke about the rollout of the Covid vaccine across the United Kingdom. It was, of course, one of the greatest achievements of this Government. My noble friend Lord Moylan spoke coherently about the union of Parliaments, the voluntary nature of this union and how unusual it was. He spoke cogently about the affection binding the union together.
In relation to the Welsh language, I will be clear: the UK Government fully support the Welsh Government’s aim for there being 1 million speakers of Welsh by 2050. The Welsh language is devolved, but the UK Government are committed to supporting its promotion and use in Wales. Languages belong to everyone and, as I said earlier, I have taken a long interest in promoting the Gaelic language. I hark back to the UK Conservative Governments of the 1980s and 1990s and their contribution to Gaelic broadcasting.
My noble friend Lord Godson likewise gave me a very generous welcome. He might not remember, but the first time I met him was at a Policy Exchange event about the union. I recognise and pay tribute to his own interest in these issues over many years. In relation to security and defence, I point to the good working between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Irish Garda. There is an embedded culture of collaboration there. They co-operate in the context of terrorism—I accept that it is not a state threat—but, on the more specific questions on defence and security, I commit to writing to my noble friend on these issues. They are very much in the domain of my noble friend Lord Minto, whom I will make aware of these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, spoke of being Hanoverian—another important English voice—and about Cumbria and its similarities to Scotland. I of course defend the levelling-up programme. It is a government achievement that occurs across the United Kingdom. Many towns in England have benefited, as well as in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I commit to writing to him in relation to the borderlands.
My noble friend Lord Udny-Lister spoke about issues relating to national security. I reiterate the same commitment to him to write to him in due course. I acknowledge his long interest in the union and recall meeting him in Edinburgh a few years ago.
My noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie spoke about Sewel. I am anxious not to step on the toes of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, which I know is looking at this at the moment. The United Kingdom is committed to the Sewel convention and the associated practices for seeking consent. The United Kingdom Government seek legislative consent for any Bill that legislates for a devolved matter or alters devolved competence. We can and do take account of devolved Administrations’ views on those issues, including in reserved policy areas.
In relation to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, I will indeed take the point about the SNP and this House to the Leader of this House. I just point out today that the objection to taking part in your Lordships’ House is the SNP’s, and effectively it is a red line for it as a political party.
The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, was a welcome Welsh voice. She asked about the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future for Wales. That report was, of course, commissioned by the Welsh Government, and it is for Ministers in Wales to respond directly to it. People and businesses in Wales want to see all tiers of government working effectively together to tackle the issues that matter to them. Delivering on what matters to people and communities is exactly what the UK Government are focused on doing.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, I reiterate the points I made about working together and repeat that I have already seen that happening in practice. The review of intergovernmental relations is up and running. All four Governments are jointly responsible for upholding the spirit and content of the IGR structures and ensuring productive governmental relations. Since the review was published in 2022, we have established 16 interministerial groups. The interministerial council has met six times; the interministerial financial standing council has met five times; the council has met once, and the secretariat has been established. There will always be evolution, and it is vital through scrutiny such as this debate that we can help mature that system.
I will conclude with some words of assurance. This Government will never cease to be a Government who put the safeguarding and strengthening of our union at the centre of our work. As I have set out, I am honoured to be able to champion this mission in this place as a proud representative of the Scotland Office. However, we must never be complacent. We must always remember that safeguarding our union is an ongoing mission and not simply a short-term response to temporary political turbulence.
All parts of our great nation contribute to the strength of the United Kingdom, which remains the most successful political and economic union the world has ever seen. Under this Government, that will always be the case.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to be able to congratulate my noble friend on the tour de force of a maiden speech we have just witnessed. To be asked to deliver a maiden speech from the Front Bench is a challenge indeed, and he has done it brilliantly. It was formidable content, delivered in the erudite way we would always expect of him, demonstrating well the intellectual heft that the Scottish Parliament has lost and we have gained.
My noble friend Lord Godson referred to a forebear of my noble friend Lord Cameron, Gentle Lochiel; I want to refer to another: Sir Ewan Cameron of Lochiel, who was a century before Gentle Lochiel, but was known and written about as a gracious master, a trusty ally but a terrible enemy. I am quite sure that noble Lords will take full notice of the last of the triplet in how they might wish to deal with my noble friend, but it is a great privilege to have him in your Lordships’ House and we look forward to all that he is going to add to debate in this Chamber.
In the minute I have left, I want to thank all noble Lords for bringing forward what has been an exposition of all the arguments that can be made for the union. That we have had detailed suggestions for government on security issues, on Sewel and on other measures is also important for our debate. While my sunny disposition might have been topped up today by lots of good unionist talk, it is very important that government continues to act on that and deliver for the union and strengthen it as we move forward.
Gas-fired Power Stations
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, it is fair to say that there has been some scratching of heads as to why exactly this announcement was deemed necessary. There is general agreement that gas-fired power stations will be needed during the transition to net zero. However, there is disquiet at the emphasis on this aspect of policy rather than on alternative approaches such as ramping up investment in renewables.
If new-build plants are needed, it is essential that they are capable of converting to hydrogen or are connected to functioning carbon capture and storage. May I seek assurance from the Minister that this is indeed the Government’s view? Can he also inform us what estimate has been made of how many of these new gas plants will be needed, when they will come on stream and how long reliance on them is expected to last?
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this announcement comes out of the blue and fuels doubts that this Government are on track to meet their own target of fully decarbonising power generation by 2035. So far, instead of progress we have seen repeated failures to prepare; the offshore wind auction collapse; an effective ban on onshore wind; nuclear power projects delayed; slow or no progress on battery storage, hydro-generation and tidal projects; and a lack of investment in overall grid capacity. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government are still committed to fully decarbonising power generation by 2035 and that these will be the last ever carbon-based power generation plants to be built in the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan)
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Earl for their questions, especially the noble Baroness, although I am slightly perplexed. If she thinks that this announcement was unnecessary, why did the Labour Party ask for it to be repeated in this House today, given that it makes the same point? However, essentially, I accept the point that the noble Baroness has made. We think that this capacity is necessary; it is all about security of supply. The estimate is that in 2035, it might account for only 1% to 2% of all of the capacity that might be required. We are looking forward a decade, with uncertain projections of what the demand will be, how much renewable capacity will be available and even what the weather conditions will be like that far ahead. So, this is sensible contingency planning.
On the questions from the noble Earl, we very much hope and expect that these will be hydrogen ready or capable of having CCUS fitted. Indeed, some gas plants are already taking part in the CCUS cluster sequencing process. This announcement is entirely compatible with our net-zero obligations. Indeed, this is net zero: there will be some emissions but those can be abated, eliminated or captured, or the power stations can run on hydrogen.
We are very proud of our record. We have one of the fastest rates of decarbonisation in the G20, and we announced before Christmas that we have reduced our emissions by 50%. We have the five biggest wind turbine farms in Europe, and that capacity continues to be rolled out. This is sensible contingency planning to make sure that the lights stay on at those times when, as we all know happen, the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this announcement because it seems to have a strong element of realism and honesty in this whole advance towards net zero, which I personally welcome.
If the aim is to ensure that when we get to net zero, although there will be fossil fuel burning, carbon is captured from that—indeed, there will be gas burning, as there is now, as part of our existing electricity generation —does this not have to go hand in hand with dynamic development of cheaper, simpler and more efficient carbon capture and storage systems, which, if applied to gas burning, will enable us to say, “Net zero is roughly there”? That seems to be the key question, and I hope my noble friend will elaborate on it.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question. He is, of course, absolutely right, and his extensive knowledge of the power and energy system, based on his previous career, is well respected in this House. I can tell him that we are rolling out CCUS at pace. We have allocated £20 billion for support for CCUS clusters. We are progressing our two initial track 1 clusters: HyNet and the East Coast Cluster. We are in final negotiations with the transport storage systems and the emitter projects, some of which are gas power stations, within those cluster projects.
We again intend to be European and world leaders in CCUS. We have massive storage potential in the seas surrounding us; they have powered this country for many years and will help us to store emissions in the future as well. It is something that could even become a net revenue earner for the UK. We are indeed fully committed to that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee yesterday released a timely report, which I am sure the Minister is aware of, on long-duration energy storage. It stresses the importance of that, rather than relying on expensive gas and the deeply uncertain technology of carbon capture and storage. The report points out that the Government have said that they plan to have enough storage to balance the system and that the cap and floor mechanism has worked very well with interconnectors to deliver that. A key point of the report is that the Government have not set a minimum target for long-duration energy storage. Will the Government now set a target for this clearly preferable alternative for long-duration storage?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the essential misunderstanding of the energy system from the noble Baroness continues apace. The answer to the noble Baroness’s question is that we need both. We need long-duration energy storage, long-term battery storage, pumped storage and long-term hydrogen energy storage—all of which we are progressing. We have the most ambitious plans in Europe in all those areas. However, all independent forecasters who have looked at this, including the Climate Change Committee, agree that, in addition to that, we may need gas-fired generation, of relatively short duration and maybe only 1% or 2%—obviously, the Greens would prefer the lights to go out in their yurts before the rest of us progress in an advanced industrial society. This is essential contingency planning, and we make no excuses whatever for saying that the energy security of the UK is our priority. We can do that in a net-zero scenario, and we will progress that.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, I have a question about baseload capacity. Under the present Government, the number of larger generators on the grid has fallen quite considerably. Due to that, we will obviously need gas-fired power stations in the short term. However, there is a problem there, because the Minister is talking about short-term capacity. Can he say whether those investing in gas power stations would see a return on investment? The reason why gas-fired power stations have failed to be built over the last 10 years is that, because of the CfD, it has been almost impossible to make the financial case for building those power stations.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is right in that the number of larger generators on the system is falling, with the elimination later this year of coal generation —we will have phased it out completely. He is right, again, that the gas generators that we are talking about—which will be some refurbished existing plants, but also a few new ones—will be able to take part in the capacity market auctions. These are essentially auctions for back-up capacity that may be required in certain scenarios.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I wonder if my noble friend the Minister can enlarge slightly on the question posed to him by the noble Baroness on the Labour Front Bench about hydrogen adaptation. I very much welcome the Statement; it seems to me important to tackle this issue in the proportionate, affordable and measured way, rather than in a millenarian spirit. Can my noble friend the Minister outline a little bit of what the Government’s hydrogen strategy is as part of that solution?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank my noble friend for the question; I am very happy to do that. We are progressing a very advanced hydrogen strategy, which I will try to summarise in a few words. We let the first 11 electrolytic hydrogen contracts before Christmas, offering £2.1 billion-worth of long-term support for the development of electrolytic hydrogen. We have a few blue hydrogen projects that are currently taking part in the CCUS negotiations. We are currently putting in place business models for a transportation and storage system and hope to progress that later this year, as well as the first couple of storage projects. We have a very ambitious hydrogen project; we think that hydrogen has a very important role to play in the net-zero scenario, both in terms of long-term energy storage and in decarbonising some elements of industry that are particularly hard to decarbonise. We should of course electrify where we can, but we will still need hydrogen power to generate power in some of those sectors.
News Broadcasting: Regulation
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the regulation of news broadcasting companies.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, one of the most satisfying experiences during my time in the Lords was to serve, in 2002, on the joint pre-legislative scrutiny committee prior to the 2003 Communications Act, chaired by the now retired and much missed Lord Puttnam. One lesson which came from that experience is that communications Bills do not come along that often, so it is important that we get things right, because correcting a mistake is not always that easy.
The 2003 Act created Ofcom as the regulator of the broadcast media. I remember at the time some people said that Murdoch’s lawyers would have Ofcom for breakfast. They did not and, in the main, Ofcom has proved an effective regulator, although, as I will explain later, I have some real concerns about how Ofcom has recently interpreted the mandate given it by Parliament.
We are about to give Ofcom some widespread discretionary powers. In doing so, it is important that the marching orders Parliament gives are clear and precise. For example, Ofcom must understand that for 100 years, under successive Administrations, Parliament has intentionally distorted the market to ensure that we have quality and choice in our broadcasting ecology.
Initially, that was done by putting broadcasting in the hands of a public corporation, protected by royal charter and guided by Lord Reith’s original mission statement to inform, educate and entertain. Since its early days, the BBC has set the gold standard for impartiality and accuracy.
Parliament made it clear, when plans were being drawn up for commercial channels in the early 1950s, that it expected exactly the same standard from the BBC’s new competitors, not least in their provision of news. So, when ITV opened its doors in 1955 and then Channel 4 followed in 1982, they were subject to exactly the same regime as the publicly funded BBC. As a result, ITN has gone toe-to-toe with the BBC in the quality and range of its reporting.
Then, in 1989, along came Rupert Murdoch with his satellite TV stations, including Sky News, beamed directly into our homes, and we wondered how long it would be before Britain had its own version of an opinionated news channels. We need not have worried; our rules on impartiality and accuracy, robustly overseen by the Independent Television Commission from 1990, made sure that Sky News was insulated from undue ownership pressures and continued the legacy of high-quality, independent television news that continues to this day under its new ownership. In perhaps the greatest tribute to the strength of our regulatory system, Murdoch once described Sky News as “BBC lite”—I do not think he meant it as a compliment.
When the broadcasting regime was overhauled in 2003, Sections 319 and 320 of the Communications Act cemented our commitment to impartiality in broadcasting by placing a statutory obligation on the regulator to ensure that due impartiality is preserved when dealing with
“matters of political or industrial controversy; and … matters relating to current public policy”.
Ofcom interprets its statutory duty through its Broadcasting Code. The code is clear that:
“Views and facts must not be misrepresented”.
Ofcom rightly affords licensees some flexibility by emphasising the notion of “due impartiality”, which allows for some discretion. It is on that basis that it has been able to license news channels with different perspectives from outside the UK. It is equally clear that one newcomer, GB News, has been testing to the limit how far it can go in ignoring impartiality rules by its choice of presenters and lines of questioning. These have been dealt with by Ofcom, at best by a tap on the wrist, often after a lengthy time of procrastination. Even more worrying are the decisions that conclude that there has been no code breach, or that complaints are not even being pursued.
We had some insight recently into Ofcom’s thinking from its chief executive, Dame Melanie Dawes. When interviewed at an Oxford conference recently, she said that the BBC, ITV and Sky News should be “held to a higher standard” than channels with smaller audiences, such as GB News. This is a doctrine far from what Parliament has asked Ofcom to do. It opens the way for a weakening and undermining of standards for which there is no parliamentary authority, and it leads us down an already well-trodden path. In the United States there is no impartiality governance framework round the media. The abolition of the fairness doctrine in the 1980s under Ronald Reagan paved the way for the fractured and polarised media environment we see today in the USA.
Of course, the technological and communications revolution through which we are passing is going to involve great changes to what we watch and how we watch it, but we should not be bamboozled into throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We must retain a strong, resilient, well-funded BBC as the iron pole around which we maintain the highest standards in delivering the information on which an informed democracy can make its decisions.
We know from repeated surveys that UK viewers and listeners have trust in news and information provided by our public service broadcasters. In an era of social media disinformation and misinformation, where citizens in a democracy need to have confidence in the information they are receiving, this is more important than ever. If the Conservatives have plans to water down regulations governing broadcasting standards, they should put that in a manifesto and fight a general election on the matter.
Because of restrictions on time, I refer the Minister to the article in the Guardian by two very experienced former Ofcom executives, Stewart Purvis and Chris Banatvala, who set out in very clear detail the dangers, particularly in a general election year, of Ofcom being able to change its remit by the back door.
Our broadcast journalism is not only trusted but underpins the values of our liberal democracy. They are the values that the BBC World Service delivers to the wider world, often with great individual courage, adding greatly to our reputation and soft power. Some say that the tsunami of information now available through digital and social media means that impartiality rules for broadcasting and the trust they instil in the public are no longer necessary. I say they have never been more important, and I hope the Minister will say so today.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on securing this important debate on the regulation of news broadcasting companies. The role of due impartiality in broadcasting is an important issue to discuss.
I should say that I have skin in the game, as I have a regular Friday night show—7 pm to 10 pm—on Times Radio, where I normally cover culture. I always have an MP on the show: sometimes I am interviewing a Labour MP, sometimes a Conservative MP. I also cover shows. I covered Mariella Frostrup’s show recently, where we changed the section “Meet the Member” to “Meet the Peer”. I was lucky enough to have the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, on that section, but I did not feel that at any point we strayed beyond the rules of due impartiality in discussing his distinguished career. The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, has been on as “my frenemy” on a Sunday show hosted by Alexis Conran. And of course, I should say that the Minister has been a guest on my show as well.
But enough about me; let us talk about due impartiality, because it is important that we discuss it. Obviously, we need to think back: as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, pointed out, this has been around for 100 years. There is a reason why we have due impartiality rules, and there is a reason why we need to debate them now. We had them then because the BBC was by far the most dominant broadcaster, along with ITV and, to a certain extent, Sky News when it came into being. Most people got their news from linear television news, and it was important that they got it in as unbiased a fashion as possible. We have never worried about due impartiality from the rich newspaper ecology that we have in this country.
Now we face a very interesting landscape, where we have a plethora of new media companies able to launch because of technology—not just Times Radio but GB News, LBC and TalkTV. And we have streaming. If you decide that flat earth is your thing, you can spend 24 hours a day, seven days a week, looking at flat earth conspiracy videos on YouTube. Amazon and Netflix are coming within Ofcom’s remit, but there is now a plethora of media.
We all know why we are talking about due impartiality. We want to avoid what we think we saw in the US, which was the rise of Fox News on the right—with its heavily biased programming and positions dictated to a certain extent by the management team—and CNN on the left. It is perhaps ironic that, if you examine the rise of President Trump, you might actually see that CNN played a bigger role, because, frankly, Trump was box office and got wall-to-wall coverage on CNN anyway.
When we discuss due impartiality, we need to be cautious. We need to have this debate not because we dislike GB News—although it does often air questionable content—or another right-wing broadcaster, because there are plenty of other stations that you could accuse of potentially breaching impartiality. LBC has David Lammy and James O’Brien—he is a broadcaster I admire, but nobody can pretend they do not know where his politics lie. The BBC has in fact today reappointed Robbie Gibb, a Conservative activist, to its board for another four years. Interestingly, in this Conservative Government, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, himself is investigating the BBC for due impartiality.
Nevertheless, I do support the thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said in his remarks, which is that it is important, as much for Ofcom’s sake as for ours, that it is not left to develop policy on its own without some oversight from Parliament, some indication from Parliament, about which direction it should travel in—and I absolutely agree with him that Ofcom is an excellent regulator that has proved itself time and time again able to navigate distinctly choppy waters where people have very strong opinions. I thought the remarks from Melanie Dawes, the chief executive, about holding broadcasters with a higher audience to a higher standard, was an interesting adaptation of doctrine, a bit like a papal bull, which deserves to be discussed in Parliament.
I sat on the fence when I raised the issue at Second Reading of the Media Bill—and guess what? I am going sit on the fence again and simply come to the position that we need to debate what we mean by “due impartiality” in a fragmented media world. Having said that, I will get off this fence and say emphatically that we need to continue to regulate broadcasters and we need the essence of due impartiality to continue.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for this important discussion. Already, it has raised meaty topics. Yesterday, in the debate on the opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, to foreign state ownership of the media, even those antagonistic to the politics of the Telegraph and the Spectator spoke passionately in support of media plurality.
While newspapers cover a wide range of political stances, in broadcasting there is a lot less viewpoint diversity, I would say, and we must ensure that any regulation does not narrow choice further. I am especially thinking of attitudes to three-year-old GB News. Love it or loathe it, the channel is surely a valuable shake-up of the media landscape, yet it has attracted a disproportionate hostility from influential voices. It is, however, popular with growing audiences, 60% of whom are based in the north. Some 3.5 million viewers watch the TV channel monthly; a further 3.5 million access its social media and 20 million its website. This month, GB News has had more views than Sky News 48% of the time and more than BBC News 29% of the time. So why are some so determined to scupper a popular channel?
Even before its launch, a liberal NGO, Stop Funding Hate, lobbied advertisers to boycott the channel, using corporate cash as a tool for censorship. More recently, big-name media players all over X have constantly urged their followers to complain about GBN to Ofcom, seemingly keen to regulate the channel out of existence. A year ago, GBN comprised 1.3% of total broadcast complaints to Ofcom. Now it is 11.3%. That is merited less by content than by politicised malice.
One complaint is the use of MPs as presenters. I am not sure how I feel about that, but some perspective is required. The channel has 30 main presenters who host their own shows, of which only two are serving MPs, appearing collectively for five hours a week out of a total of 126. What is more, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, explained, GBN did not invent the model: LBC has been doing it for years. Beyond David Lammy, in the past there has been LBC’s “Call Clegg”, “Ask Boris” and even “Phone Farage”.
I am not a cheerleader for GB News but a critical friend. Programmes such as Andrew Doyle’s “Free Speech Nation” and Michael Portillo’s culture show are the very best of UK public service broadcasting, but some shows are less to my taste. I am also a critical friend of all other broadcasters, such as the BBC; I have just been on “Politics Live”, but I have a love-hate relationship with much of the Beeb’s political output. We should not hold back from criticising channels when it is deserved, but that is not the same as trying to destroy them. I want a level regulatory playing field; otherwise, double standards might distort the focus of regulation.
In January, Jewish staff working for the BBC lodged formal complaints about anti-Semitism internally and including on coverage of the conflict. We have had BBC newsreaders ludicrously avoiding calling Hamas a terrorist organisation. As the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, noted in the Chamber on Tuesday, there are serious concerns about anti-Israel bias in the World Service Arabic division—never mind that one-man challenge to impartiality, Gary Lineker, who retweeted a bigoted demand that FIFA should ban the whole Israeli football team from international tournaments, with no consequences.
In contrast, the former BBC senior broadcast journalist Cath Walton recently wrote in the Critic about how BBC managers demanded that she delete a tweet criticising the term “cis women” within an hour of it being posted, followed by a lengthy disciplinary process in which her gender-critical views were treated as wrongthink. Ms Walton’s article was prompted by recent instances where the BBC’s lack of impartiality on sex and gender has led to seriously misleading audiences. Recently, BBC viewers were informed that men can breastfeed—spoiler: they cannot—with a non-binary identifying expert alleging, unchallenged, that the hormone-induced discharge from a trans woman’s nipples is better for babies than a mother’s breast milk. What misogynistic claptrap. Where are BBC Verify and Ofcom when you need them?
Sometimes, in the name of impartiality, facts are described as opinions due to institutionalised ideological partisanship. The BBC recently upheld a complaint against Radio 4’s Justin Webb which ruled that he broke impartiality rules when explaining a story with the factually accurate and true remark,
“trans women, in other words males”.
Finally, there are the sins of omission. Why has the BBC been absent and silent in covering the scandal of the safeguarding risks associated with puberty blockers for the young? Now that NHS England has banned them for teens, the BBC commissioned its LGBTQ+ correspondent to tell the story, not the science reporters to discuss the medical scandals. I am glad to say that GB News has been following, covering and leading on this for years.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as laid out in the register. I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for tabling this important debate.
I am aware of how careful Ofcom has been in the past about enforcing impartiality in broadcast media. The gold standard is its 2009 ruling against George Galloway’s presentation of two weekly programmes on the Iranian-based Press TV. Ofcom ruled that he had breached the Broadcasting Code on impartiality for failing to reflect a wide range of significant views and give due weight in each programme or linked programmes. That is especially important where a presenter such as George Galloway, who is known to have strongly held views, is being discussed.
The ruling added that, to comply with the code, when discussing
“matters of major political … controversy and major matters relating to current public policy”,
a broadcaster must have a range of significant alternative views in the programme. I have watched a series of programmes on GB News which did none of those things. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said that GB News puts out some of the finest public service output. I disagree.
Andrew Doyle gives an opinionated monologue which then in most cases is supported by the studio guests and followed by questions from the audience which also support those views. In one episode, the audience asked questions of major public policy such as the Church of England’s support of critical race theory and Lee Anderson’s attack on the Mayor of London for being under the control of Islamists. There was no alternative view. In the case of “Dewbs & Co” on the night of the Budget, the programme was almost entirely critical; there was only one audience member who was a bit happy with the Budget. Otherwise, everybody in the audience attacked it and they were supported by the studio guests. I thought that maybe the presenter, Michelle Dewberry, would restore the balance the following night but instead she doubled down with an attack on the Chancellor for opening the Budget with a statement on his plan for a Muslim memorial. She then went on to discuss the threat of wokery.
Ofcom has launched a series of investigations into GB News, including Neil Oliver’s conspiracy theory about turbo cancer being linked to the Pfizer Covid vaccination. The complaint against Oliver was not upheld. In defence of Ofcom, it has investigated and found against GB News for breach of impartiality in one case, but in others it has not upheld complaints because the programme was defined as current affairs. This comes down to the difference in definition between “news programme” and “current affairs programme”. In paragraph 1.8 of the regulator’s guidance, there is a definition of the news genre:
“news in whatever form would include news bulletins, news flashes and daily news magazine programmes”.
That seems to cover many of the GB News programmes I am worried about. As if to reinforce the point, when Ofcom issued a warning of breach to BBC “Newsnight” presenter Emily Maitlis over a partial monologue, it classified “Newsnight” as news.
Apart from a small reference to current affairs in the code on sponsorship, there is no definition of current affairs programmes in the Broadcasting Code or the guidelines. This lacuna was filled by a small blog from former Ofcom executive Kevin Bakhurst, which described current affairs programmes as
“a more long-form programme … extensive discussion … interviews with guests”.
This is vague and has been included in neither Ofcom guidelines nor the Broadcasting Code, so we are left with impartiality requirements for “news in whatever form”. I do not regard it as a defence for Ofcom to say that these GB News programmes are current affairs. Even if they are not, they are certainly discussing:
“Matters of major political … controversy”
or
“major matters relating to … public policy”,
which are covered by the requirement for diverse views.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, raised the issue of politicians being presenters. The code is clear that presenters must not use the advantage of their regular appearances to promote their views in a way that compromises the requirement for due impartiality. To err on the side of free speech, Ofcom has left the interpretation to individual broadcasters. On LBC, there have been politicians such as David Lammy and Nigel Farage and presenters who have a partial political view such as Nick Ferrari. While broadcasting on LBC, Nigel Farage was impressive in his tough questioning of interviewees. He talked to a range of people with diverse views and asked them difficult questions. However, in his appearances on GB News, his trenchant views when discussing matters of major political controversy are supported in almost every case by interviewees who agree with him. Where is the range of alternative opinions demanded by the code and why has Ofcom done so little to enforce it?
I generally have huge respect for Ofcom, which does a great job of treading the tightrope of balancing free speech and enforcing the code in an increasingly polarised society. I would argue that maintaining that balance is the bulwark against increasing political polarisation, which we have seen in the USA with its editorialised news channels. However, I call on our regulator to look very carefully at channels presented by politicians or people with well-known political views. It needs to police them so that people with alternative views feel safe to express them and contribute to the free speech which is so crucial to a functioning democracy.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on bringing this debate forward. He has been an indefatigable campaigner on this subject for many years. I also declare my interests as a trustee of Full Fact and the Public Interest News Foundation. An awful lot of what I would have touched on has already been said, so rather than go over it again I will make a series of slightly generalised points which may seem slightly separated from each other but, I hope, hang together coherently.
The underlying reality is that the media world is an ongoing, permanent revolution. What is appropriate, correct and accurate today may not be tomorrow or next week. As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said, you cannot have a properly working free country with universal suffrage if those who live in it do not have a reasonably accurate understanding of what is going on in the public realm—subject to the obvious caveats. If that is the case, you must get the information to the public. This is something that we spend insufficient time thinking about, because it requires money; it cannot be done for nothing. How you get it and how it is deployed is very important. Within that framework, pluralism is very important, because to answer Pilate’s question “What is truth?” is much more difficult than saying what is not true. Hence there is a real need in the broadcasting landscape for as much truthful pluralism in the national debate as you can achieve.
As somebody who chaired a local newspaper company for over a decade, I say that we must not overlook the problems and issues covering news in the smaller local areas around the country. In some ways this is a much greater problem than the question of national and international news. While the development of local democracy reporting is something that I support, I am not sure that we have cracked the problem.
The world that we live in is defined by the Government of the day. As a basic proposition, I suggest that the Government of the day should be kept as far as possible from news gathering and the national Executives of this country and other government agencies should in general have as little as possible to do with setting the terms of reference or the modus operandi of news gatherers. As has been said already, it should be left to Parliament and the courts and independent regulators to do that within a framework of an independent judiciary.
I have considerable sympathy with the journalists’ basic proposition that you must keep government as far as possible from this aspect of public life. Furthermore, it is almost axiomatic that the very rich should not be able to provide “their news” as opposed to “the news”, and they should not be able to gag the news media or stop them from distributing material that is in the public interest. I am not quite sure whether we have got the balance right in this country.
In the age of digital communications, we cannot control everything outside our own jurisdiction. We must watch what techniques there may be for dealing with aspects related to that, but we must recognise this as a truth. Equally, along the same lines, it is not appropriate for foreign Governments to control and own media coming into our country, for the simple reason that, by definition, we cannot be their priority.
At Second Reading of the Media Bill, I made the point that the world is changing so fast, and we do not have an appropriate legislative framework for dealing with the changes as they come into effect. As I said, this is a permanent revolution, and a decennial Act of Parliament is not a relevant means of keeping on top of the matters that are so important. We in this Parliament spend a considerable amount of time debating and thinking about these things, which is right and proper and must continue because, as Thomas Jefferson said, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We must not cease to be vigilant. One of Parliament’s most important roles as part of the checks and balances in our system is to establish the framework within which our fourth estate works.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and to sincerely thank him for the work that he does in attempting to provide some clarity and oversight, which is very obviously and urgently needed, coming from a civil society perspective. To reflect on the noble Lord’s speech, the rate of change and the difficulty of regulation highlights the need for us to have education on media literacy and critical thinking. The public need to have the tools; young people going through our education system need to look at something and see where it is coming from and understand it from a critical perspective. It is important that we stress that.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for securing this debate on such an important subject. I declare my position as a former newspaper editor with the Guardian Weekly; I also worked for the Times, the Independent and the Telegraph. I just want to mention that, unfortunately, I was not able to take part in the Second Reading of the Media Bill, but I plan to take part in the further stages. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, I have also taken part in Times Radio’s “Political Frenemies”, along with the noble Lord, Randall of Uxbridge, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. That is the kind of case where you can get politicians talking with a neutral adjudicator in the middle, which is very different to politicians talking to each other. I mention to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, that there are more than two parties around if he wants to invite more parties on to his show.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Okay—the noble Baroness is a third party.
In preparing for today’s topic of debate, I looked back at a press release that I put out in 2012—a dozen years ago now—in immediate response to the Leveson report. Boy, there has been a lot of water under the bridge in our media since then. I said then that I welcomed what Leveson offered—most of it has not subsequently been delivered—and I criticised the report for its lack of tackling the issue of media ownership. We do not have the kind of plurality that we need—the kind of issues I addressed yesterday around overseas ownership, and in particular the ownership of the Telegraph. An issue there is whether and how mergers and acquisitions are referred, and that has not been dealt with.
I also want to come back to the rather fraught point of the potential for Leveson 2. My understanding is that in December, the Observer reported that Sir Keir Starmer was not intending to revive the second stage of the Leveson inquiry into press standards should he form the next Government—it was abandoned by the Conservative Party in 2018—nor would Labour oppose the plans to weaken the press regulation regime in the Media Bill. It is worth noting that under previous leaders, Labour was in favour of reviving the Leveson process. In May 2018, the former party leader, Ed Miliband, said that axing the second stage was “contemptible” and
“a matter of honour, of a promise we made”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/2018; col. 724.]
to the victims of phone hacking. I know that a lot of things have happened, and a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then. However, that scandal is still very much alive and present, as we saw recently in a court case.
It was suggested to me that this debate would be all about GB News; I will just take a minute on that. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that civil society campaigns, taking a stand, doing politics, HOPE not hate saying it thought that what GB News is doing was unacceptable and that brands might not want to be associated with it, are all part of the right of a free society for people to campaign and call for boycotts—that is another issue that we are tackling the Government on in another Bill. However, there are some serious questions that the Government must provide guidance to Ofcom on. Will Ofcom allow senior party officials to present election programmes as long as they are not candidates? Can a channel host party loyalists from only one side who deliver nightly polemics and try to direct the results of election campaigns? As a professional journalist myself, I can see that GB News has taken a pattern where, in the daytime it tends to be relatively straight and have ex-BBC presenters, but in the evening, when it is likely to have more impact, there is a very different tone. Therefore, when we are thinking about balance, surely Ofcom needs to look at the impact as well as just the content that is spread over 24 hours.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord McNally for this debate, and also for his role in the Communications Act 2003, when he and others, notably Lord Puttnam, paved the way for the last 20 years. I declare an interest; I was a TV journalist and an executive working for the PSBs—at the BBC, alongside the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, at ITV and at Channel 4. How lucky I was. How lucky the country is to have this cornucopia of public service broadcasting. Take Channel 4: the incubator of our independent production sector, but also the broadcaster of “Channel 4 News”—one hour of independent news and current affairs at the heart of peak time, giving us more choice of outstanding television journalism, all subject to the same standards of impartiality and accuracy as the BBC. An hour of peak-time news on a commercial channel: that is unheard of anywhere else.
A central part of the new regime 20 years ago was the introduction, as we have heard, of a new and powerful regulator, Ofcom. It was given a very clear duty to serve the interests of citizens as well as consumers. I can think of few more important elements of that duty than to uphold the rigorous traditions of impartial and accurate journalism that have served us so well for over 100 years. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, we are in a very different world from when Ofcom was established. I am glad that the Minister shares concerns about what should be in Ofcom’s regulatory scope in relation to online news channels, and that his department is consulting on the risk of unregulated content appearing on television. That is very timely, because of the Media Bill and also because TalkTV has decided to go online. Can the Minister say when we will be able to see the results of this consultation? Does he agree that there should be a level playing field with the Ofcom-regulated traditional broadcasters?
As my noble friend has said, as well as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, we have concerns about how Ofcom is dealing with GB News. A year ago, in advance of last year’s Budget, we saw two sitting Conservative MPs interview the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was not a challenging interview; it did not include a wide range of views. But it took Ofcom six months to decide that it breached impartiality rules. Timely investigation is very important, as is timely remedy—falsehood travels faster than the truth. And that case is not the only example of a tardy response from Ofcom. Does the Minister think Ofcom has the capacity to investigate such matters?
More worrying, as my noble friend mentioned. is when complaints are not even pursued. Last September, the then deputy chair of the Conservative Party, Lee Anderson, interviewed the then Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, about immigration. Ofcom received 1,500 complaints, but declined to pursue it. When asked by the Guardian last September about the propriety of a Conservative deputy chairman interviewing a Conservative Home Secretary, Ofcom’s CEO said that rules around impartiality
“require us to prioritise freedom of expression”.
But the idea that impartiality and free expression are somehow not compatible is wrong. The whole point of an impartiality regime is that it obliges channels to present all sides of any controversial public policy issue, so that citizens can make up their own minds after hearing a range of diverse opinions. Impartiality actually promotes plurality. Does the Minister think Ofcom’s current leadership understands this?
At a gathering of GB News staff pre launch, CEO Angelos Frangopoulos allegedly told them they were working not for a broadcaster but for a tech company—a disruptor. That is wrong. They should be regulated as any other broadcaster; there should not be a two-tier system. We saw the first disruptor, Rupert Murdoch, off. He wished Sky News was Fox News—something he told my noble friend Lord Fowler when I was sitting on his committee.
To conclude, more than ever we need news that can distance itself from the partisan. This is provided by the BBC and our other great PSB outlets. Others should not be allowed to act differently.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and all noble Lords who have contributed on this very topical issue. Having watched obviously biased TV news programmes from around the world over the years, I say that it is worth reminding ourselves that in the UK we can be rightly proud of our access to a range of high-quality, trusted and impartial news broadcasters. Central to those high standards are our public service broadcasters, which, in Ofcom’s words have
“a long and proud tradition in the UK, delivering impartial and trusted news”.
This is why we are committed to securing the future of the BBC as a universally owned, public service broadcaster holding, as it does, a well-deserved place at the heart of our national life.
As noble Lords have stressed, impartial, accurate, fact-checked news is vital not only to debate but to our democratic system. This is particularly important in this election year, when the distortions of social media campaigns and deepfakes threaten the very heart of our democratic decision-making. So we are hugely reliant on Ofcom stepping up to the mark and providing a robust defence of our broadcast news standards.
Of course we recognise that the broadcast landscape is changing, with a number of new TV networks entering the market. This has to be good for consumers, but the rise of new media moguls with high-profile political agendas underlines the need for clear rules and standards. This is why Ofcom needs to tackle breaches of the Broadcasting Code with determination.
Noble Lords have quite rightly asked what progress is being made with multiple investigations into potential breaches of the Broadcasting Code by GB News. While I am sure the culture programme hosted by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, does not cross the line, clearly news programmes hosted by the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nadine Dorries, Nigel Farage, Esther McVey and Philip Davies are not going to be impartial. They frequently interview each other or their colleagues from the Tory Benches—and they have been recruited precisely because they have strong views on one side of the political spectrum.
Ofcom’s rules say that politicians are not allowed to be newsreaders, interviewers or reporters in news programmes
“unless, exceptionally, it is editorially justified”.
It is hard to imagine what the justification might be in the case of GB News. As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said, if there is a blurred line between current affairs shows and news programmes, it is important that Ofcom clarifies that distinction with some urgency.
All this matters because the world of broadcast news and journalism is changing. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, pointed out, the media world is in permanent revolution. The rules we design now have to be future-proofed to adapt to a changing landscape. What guarantees can we give to future audiences so that they can remain as proud of our broadcast output as we are today? The Media Bill gives us a chance to ensure public service broadcasters remain prominent in a digital age, but how can they remain a trusted source of news when AI and fake news threaten to undermine their output?
There is a lot riding on the shoulders of Ofcom, but as legislators we also need to play our part in setting future broadcast standards. Can the Minister say more about the department’s expectations of how broadcast media will change and how the Broadcasting Code is being reinterpreted for a modern age? What discussions have been held with Ofcom about its capacity to deliver an ever-widening role? Does it have the capacity, resources and support from Ministers that it needs to make difficult decisions and fulfil its remit? Can the Minister shed some light on the investigation processes of Ofcom? What is the practical impact of a broadcaster being found to have been in breach of the code and what sanctions are available? Is there a cumulative effect in the behaviour of a broadcaster? Are breaches considered to increase in significance if they are the second, third or fourth example of the code being disregarded? Finally, Ofcom announced last summer that it would conduct research into audience attitudes towards politicians hosting shows. When can we expect the conclusions to be published?
These are serious issues and I hope the Minister can provide reassurance on Ofcom’s role going forward. I look forward to his response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for securing today’s debate and join in the commendation paid to him on his role in the Communications Act 2003 and the important work that it ushered in for the regulation of our media and broadcasting landscape over the last two decades. This is an important issue that he has been involved in not just for those 20 years but before as well. I agree with him that the issues that he puts before your Lordships’ House today are as important today as they have ever been. They are timely, too, with our debates that are taking place on the Media Bill.
We are very proud of the UK’s world-renowned broadcasting sector, through which British-made programmes are enjoyed by audiences both at home and across the globe. The regulatory framework that underpins that landscape is also looked to internationally as the gold standard for proportionate, fair and independent regulation. It is that framework which means that UK audiences know that they will be appropriately protected from harm and that they are able to complain to the independent regulator, Ofcom, if they have concerns.
Quality broadcast news has a long and proud history in this country and is an essential element of our media landscape. It supports our global reputation as the home of outstanding news journalism. Our regulatory system for broadcasting, put in place by Parliament, supports this. It ensures that audiences can encounter a diverse array of voices and perspectives, just as we have had in this short debate, and that they have access to fair and balanced sources of news. That is particularly important when we consider the influence that broadcast news can have on those who watch it, and the huge reach of TV content across the UK.
Recent Ofcom research shows that broadcast television is the most used platform for news content, watched by 70% of all adults in the UK. UK audiences also consistently rate television news as more accurate and trustworthy compared to other sources of news such as social media. The significant place that broadcast news has in our television and news landscape is what makes its regulation, and indeed debates like this, so important.
The Government are strongly committed to a pluralistic media. It is essential that audiences are able to access news from a range of sources, not just broadcast news, to allow them to form opinions in a considered and nuanced way. There is an important balance to be struck here to ensure that the protections in place for audiences are strong and effective but that those do not have an undue impact on the UK’s free and independent media, on which we rightly pride ourselves.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that it is important to arm those who consume our news with the critical thinking skills that they can get from learning subjects at school such as history, art and English literature. That is an issue that we discussed on the Online Safety Act and which we are looking at as we work on our cultural education plan. It is important to equip future generations to consume the news in a critical and thinking way.
It is in the context of a free and independent media that we consider Ofcom as the regulator of broadcast news content. Ofcom’s independence is an underlying principle of its function, and by law it carries out its duties independently of the Government. Ofcom is accountable to Parliament, with its duties and enforcement powers set out in statute, and we are confident that it has the resources it needs to carry out its important job.
As noble Lords are aware, Ofcom is required by legislation to draw up and enforce a Broadcasting Code for television and radio to ensure that audiences are adequately protected from harm. The code sets out rules so that these protections for audiences, including rules specifically to protect children, ensure that audiences are protected from harmful or offensive material and that broadcast news, in whatever form, is reported with due accuracy and impartiality. Ofcom regulates programmes as broadcast against the code. It is for Ofcom to determine whether there has been a breach of the code and whether to take any action.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, and others raised the comments made earlier this month made by the head of Ofcom, Dame Melanie Dawes. Ofcom has been clear that its rules requiring due impartiality apply equally to all broadcasters. Under its code, Ofcom takes into account a range of factors when considering complaints, including the nature of the subject, the type of programme and channel, and the likely expectation of the audience regarding the content.
Importantly, in making any decision, Ofcom is required by legislation to strike a balance between ensuring an appropriate level of freedom of expression and adequate protections for audiences from harmful material. There are a number of sanctions available to Ofcom where a breach of the code has been found, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said. This includes levelling a fine and, in extreme cases, amending or revoking a broadcaster’s licence to broadcast, as has been done.
The Government consider that the enforcement powers given to Ofcom are appropriate and sufficient to provide a deterrent to organisations from breaching the rules. There are numerous examples of Ofcom using these enforcement measures to ensure that Broadcasting Code rules are upheld. It is rightly for Ofcom to determine the timing of its investigations and what sanctions, if any, are appropriate. While I understand the concerns raised by noble Lords about the length of time this can take, I hope they would also agree that it is important that Ofcom follows the requirements in legislation to make careful and nuanced judgments, and to take the time to do that and hear representations from all parties concerned.
Ofcom also has a duty to keep the Broadcasting Code under continual review. This is to ensure that the code remains up to date and continues to reflect the current viewing and broadcasting landscape. In this way, the regulatory framework is designed so that Ofcom can ensure that its regulation of content can adapt to the shifts in technology and audience expectations that we see in broadcasting today.
I will also touch on the regulation of the providers of news broadcasting, rather than just the content that appears on these channels, as I have discussed so far. Ofcom has an ongoing duty to be satisfied that the person holding a broadcasting licence is fit and proper to hold it. If any evidence came to light and Ofcom ceased to be satisfied that a licensee was fit and proper, Ofcom would move to revoke that licence, as it has in the past.
I also recognise the vital work of the Communications and Digital Committee of your Lordships’ House, expertly chaired by my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, and of which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is a valued member. The committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into the future of news, which recognises the challenges faced by news providers in the current landscape, where we are seeing new technology, shifts in the ways that audiences access information, and concerns about trust and impartiality. This is a very important and complex topic, and one that is essential to consider if we are to face these challenges head on and work to maintain the delivery of trustworthy and well-respected news media in this country. My department has submitted written evidence to the committee on this subject, which I hope will be of use to it in the inquiry. We look forward to its report and the recommendations it may have.
With renewed thanks to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for the opportunity to discuss the debates today and recognising that we will continue many of them in our deliberation on the Media Bill, I thank him for bringing forward this Question for Short Debate.
Post Office Legislation
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, as we have said many times before, the Fujitsu/Horizon scandal is truly shocking and one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in British history. The scandal has brought blight and devastation to the lives of thousands of falsely convicted sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. Over 20 years on, they and their families still suffer from the consequences and trauma of all they have been through. I pay tribute to them for their determination in pursuing justice, especially those who took the very courageous and difficult step of challenging the Post Office. Without their bravery and perseverance, the campaign would not be where it is today.
We of course welcome the legislation that has been laid before Parliament. Before giving a full verdict on it, we will need to properly scrutinise the detail and analyse its potential impacts. In the first instance, the legislation still leaves a series of outstanding issues, including the question of when justice and compensation will be delivered and to whom.
I ask the Minister: what steps have he and Ministers in the other place taken to prevent this rightly exceptional piece of legislation being used by government in a nefarious way in future? How are we protecting against the abuse of this legislation further down the track? The flip side of that is that there are many other scandals that courts, reviews and government are working through. Could the principle of this legislation be used by them?
As I have said before, I seek assurances on the territorial scope of the legislation, which currently applies only to England and Wales even though the Post Office is not devolved and the Fujitsu Horizon system and the impacts of the scandal are UK-wide. Approximately 30 cases need overturning in Scotland and Northern Ireland but a series of outstanding questions remain as to when sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in Scotland and Northern Ireland in particular will receive their justice. I welcome the Minister’s assurances that there will be regular dialogue with the devolved Administrations, given the different legal processes, but I will be a bit more specific: can the Minister update your Lordships’ House on what conversations his department has had with colleagues in Northern Ireland, who have expressly requested that the cases there be included in the scope of this legislation?
This is probably harder to deal with but can the Minister also update your Lordships’ House on what conversations the department has had with colleagues in Scotland about the progress on exonerating sub-postmasters there? As we know, 80% of the redress budget is yet to be paid out and considerable uncertainty remains about when sub-postmasters will receive their full compensation. We all agree, I am sure, that they have waited long enough and that the delays are causing only further financial distress and suffering.
The Commons Business and Trade Committee recommends that there be a “legally binding timeframe” for the period between an offer first being tabled and a settlement being reached. Would the Minister care to comment on that recommendation? If those legally binding targets are not adopted, what assurances can the Minister give that Minister Hollinrake will meet his target of ensuring that all compensation is out of the door by the end of the year? I know that the Minister here and the Minister in the other place are committed to ensuring that there are no further delays but sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses will want to know when this will actually happen.
Given the recent chaos in the Post Office’s leadership, we welcome the decision to take it out of the redress process. In fact, last week, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and I called for this. Redress must have independent oversight; I thank the Government Ministers and their teams for implementing this. Financial redress alone cannot come close to repaying sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses for their suffering, although it is important that we get it right. As we have previously discussed, some of those impacted by the scandal have sadly passed away; they did not live to see this legislation and their innocence proven, nor to receive the compensation that they rightly deserved. Can the Minister clarify the process for those who have passed away so that their families can receive closure?
On the families, especially children and partners, we see today in the news that a number of children of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses are looking to take legal claims against the Post Office. Can the Minister inform your Lordships’ House of the Government’s attitude towards this? It is vital that the Government act with the urgency and speed that are needed to correct this injustice. We on these Benches stand ready to work with the Government to ensure the speedy implementation of this Bill.
I have just one question regarding the Explanatory Notes. On page 7, paragraph 41, the sentence just trails off. It starts:
“Clause 2 gives the meaning of ‘relevant offence’ with reference to several conditions set out in the subclauses”.
That is fine, but it continues:
“All of the conditions must be satisfied for an alleged offence to”.
It just stops. Can the Explanatory Notes be updated? I understand that this was rushed through, and that is absolutely fine, but it would be helpful if we could have just a bit of clarity of what the end of the sentence is meant to be.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the Liberal Democrat Benches echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, about the consistent and determined efforts of the wronged postmasters who still are fighting for the redress that they deserve. I thank the Minister for the Statement. We on these Benches are pleased to see that legislation will start to correct the fundamental wrongs done to most of the postmasters convicted as a result of the Horizon scandal.
However, the Statement says that
“this legislation will quash all convictions that meet a clear set of conditions”.
These are defined in paragraph 11, on pages 3 and 4 of the Explanatory Notes for the Bill, which was introduced yesterday in another place; the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, referred to those Explanatory Notes just now. Can the Minister explain how these criteria were decided upon? How many of the convicted postmasters are excluded from this redress scheme as a result, and why? I appreciate that all this has been done in a hurry, but even if my questions cannot be answered now, please can the answers be clearly articulated to those who will speak on this Statement so that we can understand why? At the moment, it is not clear who is and is not included as a result of Clause 2 of the Bill.
As I mentioned in a number of previous interventions on this issue, we know that software issues were reported in the predecessor systems to Horizon. Indeed, in 1997, when the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, was Paymaster-General, there was a steady stream of complaints during the pilot rollout. The i newspaper has also revealed the problems with the Capture scheme, under which a number of postmasters were also convicted. It said yesterday:
“Steve Marston … was using Capture, an IT system rolled out by the Post Office in the early 90s when he suffered unexplained shortfalls of around £79,000. He insists he never stole ‘a penny’ from his branch at Heap Bridge, Greater Manchester, but felt pressured into pleading guilty in 1998 in order to avoid a prison sentence, a tactic the Post Office has admitted was widely used by investigators to secure convictions”.
Can the Minister explain why this group of postmasters, who were using Capture when there were complaints, are also excluded from this Bill?
The Minister says in the Statement that the Bill only covers England and Wales; the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, has already covered this. It specifically excludes Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Statement says:
“However, we are fully committed to working with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive through regular, weekly official-level engagement to progress their own approaches”.
If that is the case, why has the Justice Minister in the Scottish Parliament, Angela Constance, expressed her real concern that Scotland is not included? She said:
“We, along with the Northern Ireland Executive, urged the UK Government to introduce UK-wide legislation as the best way to ensure there is a quick, fair and equal solution for all the affected sub-postmasters, particularly as the Post Office is reserved to Westminster, so this announcement is extremely disappointing”.
Given that, in that same paragraph, the Statement goes on to say
“The financial redress scheme will be open to applicants throughout the UK, once convictions have been overturned”,
why on earth has the decision been made by the Westminster Government to exclude Scotland and Northern Ireland, when neither of those devolved Governments want that?
The Statement made it clear, at last, that the Post Office will no longer have responsibility for redress and should be subject to independent oversight. My noble friend Lord Fox and I, and others from these Benches, have also raised this as a fundamental problem of trust for many postmasters, so its removal is welcome. However, I ask whether the Department for Business and Trade is truly independent of the process, not least because of the debate about the speed of processing of claims that happened in January following the differing statements from the Prime Minister, Kevin Hollinrake MP and the Secretary of State, Kemi Badenoch. The Government are responsible for the payments—I shall come on to that later—but this gives them some skin in the game and one thing has to happen now, which is to give postmasters confidence that oversight is truly independent. Can the Minister therefore describe how independent the independent panels or independent individuals will be? Who will appoint them? Will there be a departmental official on the panel? Will departmental staff clerk the panels? Will the independent panels include a postmaster?
The Statement says that there will be legislation to make sure that the payments are exempt from taxation. A regulation on taxation exemption under the compensation arrangements for both the Horizon and infected blood schemes was presented to Parliament in December 2023. Is this a further simple amendment to that regulation, or is it further, separate secondary legislation, or is it a new Bill? How will it differ? Can the Minister explain?
The final section of the Statement refers to the Select Committee’s recommendation of a legally binding timeframe for redress—here, I echo the questions from the noble Lord, Lord McNicol—but I think there is some sympathy for ensuring speed wherever possible. However, the Statement said that it would be impossible without imposing penalties on forensic accounts. That seems to be an extremely narrow focus. There is a balance to be struck between ensuring as swift as possible processing of payment and debate between postmasters and forensic accountants about what is due to postmasters. The critical reason for independence is to ensure that postmasters are afforded a truly fair debate, which many say has been denied them in the initial offers received from the scheme when it was run by the Post Office.
Finally, I have been going through the central government supply estimates for 2023-24 and obviously looked at the Budget papers. I am still struggling to find the compensation payments—in total, approaching about £1 billion—in either the department or Treasury tables. Can the Minister help? I have raised this matter now with, I think, three Ministers and would be grateful if the Minister could write to me and point me in the right direction for the figures. I know that Liam Byrne has also raised these points in the Select Committee he chairs.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
We will come to the noble Lord shortly, although it is right to be hasty.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for their input and will try to answer their questions as we go through. On the noble Lord’s wise point about why the sentence in the Explanatory Notes trails off, I think there is a typo. If I remember rightly, it should say “extinguish criminal convictions” at the end of that sentence. I am grateful to him for pointing that out.
Perhaps I may cover collectively the broad themes raised. The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, asked how we prevent the misuse or abuse of this measure. I was interested to hear a noble Lord speak in a previous debate about the quashing of convictions of soldiers in the First World War. This was a group conviction-quashing measure that was considered unique and was specifically designed for special circumstances. There was great concern that the process might be misused at a later date—I cannot remember exactly when; it must have been 20 years ago or more—and, clearly, that has not been the case. I think we are all apprised of the need to make sure that such constitutional situations are handled with extreme sensitivity and delicacy. In this instance, the Government, like Peers on all sides of this House—indeed, those in both Houses of Parliament—believe sincerely that it is only through this measure that we can be sure that people’s convictions are quashed. To confirm: this is an active statement of quashing of convictions; people are not required to apply to have their convictions quashed.
The issue of trust in the Post Office and the independence of the system and of the court processes has been raised, and this is the most effective way to ensure that we do the right thing by people who we believe have been wrongly convicted using evidence that we feel is clearly unreliable.
I would like to just cover the point the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made about the criteria in the Bill. The criteria governing who will qualify to have their convictions quashed are well laid out, and I am sure there will be a debate about the specifics when the Bill comes to this House. However, it is right that this applies between a set period of dates, that it relates to certain types of crimes linked to the Horizon computer system, that having used the Horizon system has to be part of the process of the conviction, and that, obviously, the person in question was working for the Post Office at the time. We are making, in my view, a series of pretty clear statements about what we are trying to achieve here. It is perfectly reasonable to raise the point about Capture. It was not felt appropriate to bring those cases into this process. However, Horizon trial periods, or the periods of beta testing for it, are included, as I understand it. If that is not the case, I will provide the House with a correction, but I believe that is right.
There has been a significant debate about the territorial scope of this Bill. The reality is that we operate different legal systems, and justice is devolved in Northern Ireland as it is in Scotland. This is not a question of the Government trying to get out of our responsibility or pass responsibility off. As the noble Baroness rightly said, the Government’s redress schemes cover the whole of the United Kingdom. There is no advantage to not having a system that covers the entirety of the United Kingdom. I am sure that many people believe that to be highly preferable, and it would make logical sense, but we have been especially careful to keep returning to the need to be sensitive to the constitutional realities of the unique action we are taking. It is right that, instead of looking at this stage for a complete UK-wide Bill, we allow this to be devolved to the common-law authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I reassure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that we are in regular contact. In fact, as we speak, a meeting is going on with the devolved nations about how to achieve this. Everyone has the same goal. I have not heard the comments made by the Scottish Justice Minister, but if anything, that continues to point to a high degree of collaboration.
We want justice to be done for these individuals as quickly as possible, across the whole United Kingdom. I have spoken to my colleague, Kevin Hollinrake, who has done a fantastic job in driving this process forward. We are all of the same opinion. Whatever measures are required to do this in the most appropriate and speediest way, we will certainly take. We will look into any way in which we can help the devolved authorities achieve their goals, in line with ours.
The principle of a target timeline for settlements, which was mentioned in the report cited earlier, was rightly raised. I feel strongly that it makes a lot of sense superficially, but the reality is that these are complex processes. We have already delayed having a cliff edge, which we did not think would be helpful. Some of these cases will take time to assess.
We agree on many things, but I am afraid that I do not agree with the idea that there is a huge amount of unpaid compensation, as if it is sitting in a bank waiting to be paid out. It does not work like that. In fact, over three quarters of the claims filed under the HSS scheme have been paid, a large proportion of those under the GLO scheme have been paid, and a large number of overturned convictions have been settled. We are working very fast. I can reassure this House that it is not in the interests of any member of this Government to delay in any way. We have made very good progress.
Importantly for noble Lords listening today, we have raised the fixed-rate payments so there is equality between GLO and HSS schemes, and I believe we have also raised the interim payment received. As soon as you submit a claim, you get £50,000 if you do not take the minimum £75,000 pay, and there is a £450,000 interim payment for overturned conviction compensation. That is important. We want to get money immediately into the pockets of people who need to be compensated. Clearly, there is a margin for discussion and debate, and it is absolutely right that that be done carefully. I hope that we can get the right outcomes. Of course, there is no limit to the compensation that can be paid.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about the accounts of the Department for Business and Trade and how this is accounted for. I believe that it would be too soon for last year’s accounts, but our next year’s accounts close in April and will be filed in July or August. I assume some element of the accounting will appear there. In terms of the billion or so that has been set aside, I am told by the Treasury that it does not sit in a ring-fenced account; it is part of the reserves that have been estimated as required. Of course, we also expect contributions from other areas as well. I am very comfortable coming back to noble Lords who will clearly ask in more detail how the accounting process works. I would be delighted to report to Parliament on that and I am sure that there will be plenty of discussions and question around it.
I hope that I have covered the main points, but I would like to return to two final questions. In terms of postmasters who have passed away, the estate is entitled to the compensation. There are also issues where families who have lost joint homes, or where there are additional complications around that, can receive compensation as well.
The question of independent oversight is absolutely to be raised, particularly regarding how these schemes are run. I am delighted to report that the overturned convictions compensation scheme will be run by the Department for Business and Trade, which I think was demanded by the postmasters. It is very important that people feel a sense of independent oversight, so we have therefore appointed a number of senior judges to provide us with that.
I do not have an answer on whether a postmaster will be included, for example, on the oversight board. I think that is an extremely good idea and I am sure that my colleague Kevin Hollinrake would agree that it is an excellent idea. I cannot commit to that now, but these are all very reasonable policy points to make sure that the postmasters who have been affected feel a sense of confidence. It is not just a question of having their convictions overturned and receiving financial compensation; they need to feel respected by the system that treated them so badly.
It is very important that all sides of the House feel able to make contributions in terms of how we can make the system work more effectively to achieve these goals. I am grateful for the ability to have this debate. I think we have made extremely good progress under the leadership of my Secretary of State, and particularly Minister Kevin Hollinrake. Clearly, there is more work to be done and we cannot move too fast to give these people redress. I hope that I can count on the support of all Peers in this House to bring this legislation through so that we can have these convictions quashed in July.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board. I pay tribute to my noble friend the Minister; to Kevin Hollinrake, the Minister in another place; to his impressive team of civil servants; to the Government in general; to Alan Bates; to ITV; and especially to Alex Jennings, of course. But, before this turns into an Oscars speech, we must acknowledge that there is much to be done.
I just want to raise one matter: those excluded from this legislation. I understand that the Government do not want to go head to head with the Court of Appeal, but some people have been excluded through the accident of fate—they have been refused permission to appeal or have had their convictions not turned down by the Court of Appeal. Will the Government encourage and, if necessary, resource and facilitate, those people who are expressly excluded for those reasons from this legislation? Will the Government encourage them to go back to the Court of Appeal for their convictions to be reconsidered? It would be quite wrong if these sub-postmasters were, through that accident of fate, the only sub-postmasters in the country to continue to have convictions against their name.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
The noble Lord will have his moment; he will definitely be next, I am sure of it.
My thanks go to my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot. As we all know, a huge amount of thanks should go to him for his tireless efforts over many years. It is a huge lesson for all of us who want to make a difference in public life to see someone like him battle away at the forces of the machine. He has given me personally a great deal of inspiration and I am grateful to him also for the way that he has handled debates such as this and for the sensitive and thoughtful way that he has approached these complex subjects.
On the matter of claimants who have had their appeals refused or who, not being part of this scheme, have been unable to go forward to appeal, I have listened to that comment and will have further conversations with my colleagues about what we can do to ensure that the right level of information is given to those people to enable them to assess their position in the process. Noble Lords must forgive me, I am not a lawyer and there may be some specific issues around this, but I am told that those who have not been able to go through to appeal are not prevented from appealing again. It would strike me that, given the situation around this whole process, the system would certainly bear this in mind. I cannot speak on behalf of the courts; it is essential that they retain their independence on that front.
I was interested to hear my noble friend’s suggestion of support for those individuals, in terms of legal advice, or whatever it may be. I will certainly take that back to the department and I would have thought it would receive a very sympathetic hearing. My noble friend is absolutely right that it would be very unfair if there was a small section of individuals who lost out on this process simply because they had tried to appeal before their peers had done so. That would not be right and it is worth looking into in some considerable detail.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
Third time lucky, my Lords.
First, I concur with everything that my noble friend Lord McNicol said from the Front Bench. I am not going to repeat all those points; he covered the waterfront. I share some of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I also need to declare an interest because I was a junior Minister at the time. I was not dealing with this issue; I was dealing with what seemed a bigger issue at the time—the privatisation of Royal Mail, which never actually took place then.
Before I go on with my contribution, I pay tribute to somebody who I know wanted to be here today, but ill health prevented him: my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead, whose track record on involvement with the Post Office and Royal Mail is second to none. I saw him last week and he was hoping he would manage to make it, but, clearly, he could not—that is for the record.
I come to paragraph 33 in the Statement, which says that
“we will exonerate those who were so unjustly convicted of crimes that they did not commit”.
Of course, I welcome that, but the people I want to focus on are those who did commit crimes; what are the Government going to do about them?
We heard recently that Fujitsu, unbelievably, was still being involved in government contracts, although it has given back some of the money. There are other people who ought to be held responsible for what turned out to be crimes: deliberate attempts to conceal a system that they knew was faulty. That includes Fujitsu itself. So I would welcome the Minister making some statement about when this particular aspect is going to be dealt with.
I understand that there will be some aspects of this that might be considered sub judice or whatever, but I would welcome an initial comment on when and how the Government are going to deal with this situation. The idea that Fujitsu should continue to be seen as a reliable contractor, working with the Government, is in my view somewhat doubtful. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his comments. I wholeheartedly agree with him about how the order has come out. Our first priority is to make sure that the victims are compensated and justice is speedily done.
The second part—which, I am afraid, will take longer—is a thorough analysis of what actually happened and why, over many years, there was a persistent type of activity and a culture in an organisation that was classified as an arm’s-length government body: who should have done what, and at what time. Of great importance is the role of the “state”—and I say that in inverted commas, because I am not trying to play party politics here. I am afraid that many people in this House over many years had positions of responsibility that should have enabled a higher degree of inquiry than clearly took place.
How do we make sure that these organisations function properly, and how can we make sure that government officials, Ministers, and so-called independent directors and other directors of these organisations behave in the right way to ensure that they are run properly, and we do not see a repeat of these activities? It is very important that we have a broad and wide debate. That is why it is always very important that we regard the untrammelled power of the “state” with great suspicion.
I refer briefly to the noble Lord’s comments in relation to Fujitsu. As I understand it, we are looking to work with Fujitsu on how it can assist in compensating victims. I think that conversation is ongoing, but at the end of the day, it is the inquiry that will allow us to decide what to do next. It is absolutely without question that there are people who need to be held to account for these actions over the past 15 or so years. I am grateful for this prompt; this will continue to be a part of the process.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot in paying tribute to my noble friend the Minister and other Ministers in another place, along with all those in government who have got us to where we are so far. It has been a hard and difficult road, and it has been too long. The Minister is quite right that whatever happens, we must see that justice is done, and we must do all that we can in our power to ensure that this kind of abuse never happens again.
However, I am curious. I am probably being a little premature, but I do not understand why there has been no question, so far, about the role of the board directors who came and went through this appalling scandal: Tim Parker, Adam Crozier, Ken McCall, Carla Stent, Zarin Patel, Allan Leighton, Alice Perkins, and Susannah Storey—who I gather is now the Permanent Secretary at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. What role did these people play? Is this being looked at thoroughly in the inquiry?
We do have something in our power: corporate manslaughter. That might sound extreme, but four people committed suicide because of what was done to them over a period of years, while this stellar list of, as Private Eye would call them, “City slickers” came and went, well paid as directors of the Post Office. Do they get off scot free? Is the inquiry going to take so long that it gets thrown into the long grass? Does my noble friend agree that we should at least consider how these people should perhaps be charged with corporate manslaughter, so that they can prove their innocence at their own expense?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble friend for raising the salience of these very important issues. It genuinely would not be helpful or appropriate for me to make a comment on any specific case. The inquiry itself is, in my view, extremely well led and very detailed. We are going to draw a number of conclusions from the extremely forensic amount of investigation that is being undertaken at the moment.
On a broader point, my noble friend is absolutely right: the principle around the leadership of these organisations, how they function, how they report to their boards, the independence of various directors on those boards and how those boards interact with government departments and Ministers, is absolutely something that I believe everyone in this House wants to look more closely at. The principle of arm’s-length still being within the reach of Ministers and responsible entities is also extremely important. I hope that while that may not be the specific outcome of the review relating directly to the Post Office, it will be the next stage in the investigation by Ministers and Parliament.
Housing: Young People
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
That this House takes note of the housing needs of young people.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the usual channels in my party for selecting this debate, as my contributions on this subject have sometimes caused distress. I am also grateful to those who have put their names down to speak on a subject whose salience is rising up the political agenda, and I look forward to an informed and constructive debate.
I want to outline what steps might be taken in the next Parliament to improve housing outcomes for everyone, but particularly for young people. They have been one of the principal casualties of the housing market, which the Government themselves admitted in their White Paper seven years ago was broken and which is now, at best, convalescing. The foreword to that White Paper said:
“Soaring prices and rising rents caused by a shortage of the right homes in the right places has slammed the door of the housing market in the face of a whole generation”.
In 1989, more than half of those aged 25 to 34 had a home of their own; now that figure is about a quarter. The most common form of living for those of that age is with their parents. Shelter tells me 45% of renters aged 16 to 24 spend half or more of their income on rent. Many would spend far less with a mortgage on the same property, but the high rent means that they cannot afford a deposit—and, not always mentioned, they are now getting much less space within each flat.
There are wider political consequences from this. That generation of young people have parents and grandparents who share their concern—and may indeed be sharing their home—and will be looking for solutions when they vote later this year.
I was lucky enough to have done nine years as Housing Minister, in four Parliaments, under seven Secretaries of State—counting the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, twice—and with four Permanent Secretaries, confounding the usual “Yes Minister” caricature of transient politicians and permanent civil servants. I draw on that experience in my contribution to this debate, recognising that I got many things wrong.
The first job of the Prime Minister after the election is to make it clear that the Housing Minister will be there, barring accidents, for the whole of that Parliament. That was not unusual. In my first nine years in the other place, there were two Housing Ministers, each lasting the whole Parliament, and both were highly effective. Since 2010, there have been 16. It is important to understand why this is a serious mistake.
An effective Housing Minister who will drive through the radical changes that are needed must build a strong personal relationship with the key players: the National Housing Federation, Homes England, the LGA, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Town and Country Planning Association, the Home Builders Federation, and many others, including the think tanks. You cannot subcontract the building of those relationships to civil servants. That takes time.
Those relationships will be crucial in getting a picture of the challenge, but also later on when one needs to draw on trust and good will to get reform through. You need to know which go-ahead directors of housing are making the weather, which housing associations have some interesting solutions, and which group of talents is turning around a difficult-to-let estate. There are some really good people in housing today.
More than that, you need to understand the complexities of public expenditure—you need to know your AME from your DEL—and you need to watch the Treasury like a hawk. That requires an understanding of Treasury theology as well as economics. If the Housing Minister is ever in doubt about what to do, he should consult the person who knows more about housing and has done more for housing than anyone else: the noble Lord, Lord Best. To make my point about continuity: who has been the most successful Cabinet Minister in this Parliament? Ben Wallace—he was there for four years.
The key word in the White Paper I mentioned, Fixing Our Broken Housing Market, was “market”. A market is where buyers and sellers meet and where supply matches demand. A good market would make it easier for people to move, promote mobility and make it easier to buy and sell. The group that would benefit most from this extra mobility are those waiting for their first home.
There are 3.6 million homes with two or more spare bedrooms. Many older people want to trade down or to rightsize, freeing up their homes for young families. Professor Mayhew estimated that we need 50,000 homes for older people who want to rightsize, but we are only producing 8,000. An older person rightsizing triggers a chain of movements, promoting labour mobility and making better use of the stock we have. The planning system should be more proactive in securing the right mix of new builds. The best way to help younger buyers is to help older buyers.
Stamp duty is an important impediment to the market—£15 billion of friction—and then there is the hassle of house purchase. Last year, I sold my car. I took a photo, uploaded the details on a website and had an acceptable offer within hours. Later that day, a flat-bed truck arrived and, as the car was driven up the ramps, the money arrived in my bank account. What comparable progress has been made using modern technology to simplify house purchases? None, since I bought my first home 60 years ago.
Many young people have to rent, but private landlords are leaving the market, due to high interest rates, fears about impending legislation, a less attractive tax regime and new energy efficiency standards. The NRLA says that private landlords are more than twice as likely to sell properties than they are to purchase them, exerting upward pressure on rents. We should say to private landlords that, if they sell to their tenant, no capital gains tax or stamp duty will be payable—not a right to buy but an incentive to sell. That would have a dramatic effect on home ownership for young people, almost certainly lowering their housing costs and enabling them to move up the ladder.
I support the Renters (Reform) Bill—by the way, what has happened to it?—but it will reduce supply. The Bill should have been accompanied by measures to increase supply and put the private rented market on a more sustainable basis. Other countries have a different model, which we should progressively adopt. In Europe, long-term institutional finance provides secure, well-managed rented accommodation; in this country, it provides 2% of the rented stock. We need to progressively reduce the overdependence on the private landlord, who can release capital only by selling, and get the pension funds and insurance industry to invest in what, historically, would have been a better investment than equities. The next Minister needs to get those institutions in the room with the Treasury and unlock the barriers to that investment.
I mentioned selling to the tenant, but what about the deposit? I read in the Times that there is £2.5 trillion tied up in housing equity. That is £2,500 billion, money will eventually end up with children and grandchildren, but not when they need it. I understand all the caveats about equity release and the need to take advice, but the product today avoids any negative equity on death and can reduce inheritance tax. People are cautious about it because of the unknown care costs. Many more would take that option, and help young people buy, if the next Government implement the recommendations of the Dilnot commission in 2011 and cap care costs. Again, focusing on the older generation helps the younger ones.
Many young people will not be in the fortunate position of having that help and will need access to social housing, adding to the 1.2 million people on the waiting list. My party needs to overcome its residual resistance to social housing. The old norms that trade unionists and council tenants voted Labour while home owners and professional people voted Tory have been blown out of the water by Brexit and the 2019 election. In 1953, 250,000 council houses were built and my party won the next two elections. What regime encouraged the local authorities, now going bankrupt, to invest in speculative shopping centres and office blocks when they could have been building houses?
A new Administration should look at the role of social housing for young people. Forty years ago, a young couple could put their name on the waiting list and be reasonably confident that, in due course, they would get to the top. Today, if that young couple are sharing with in-laws or living in rented accommodation, they are not likely to have that ability.
Social housing is focused, rightly, on priority groups: those threatened with homelessness—increasingly under Section 21—threatened with domestic violence, in poor health or living in very poor conditions. Then there is additional pressure from those from Ukraine, and as the Home Office stops using hotels for asylum seekers. Access to social housing has become an accident and emergency service. This raises the sensitive question of life tenancies. If a family face a crisis and then, thanks to social housing and the support that goes with it, rebuild their lives and other options become affordable, should they make way for another family who face the crisis that they once faced? I am not suggesting making them homeless again, but perhaps some nudges.
This is relevant because, the last time I looked, a young couple on the waiting list is eight times more likely to be rehoused through a re-let than through a new build. Increasing the flow through social housing will help them. There is a role for an expanded tenant incentive scheme to help families move on, securing a re-let for those on the waiting list at a fraction of the cost of new build and far quicker.
We need to build more new homes of all tenures to meet demand from first-time buyers. Veterans of the LUR Bill will know my views about planning, confirmed by last month’s CMA report, which referred to a
“complex and unpredictable planning system”
with “under resourced” planning departments. There is no need to increase public expenditure to unblock the system—just allow planning departments to recruit the staff they need and cover their costs with application fees.
Then my party has to confront the nimbys within our ranks. Yes, we may lose a few votes to the ever-opportunistic Lib Dems if unpopular development goes ahead, but we will lose far more if we do not have a coherent housing policy. We should recognise that the green belt is not sacrosanct and should reinstate local authority targets. You cannot rely on the good will of local government to provide the homes we need.
I do not have time to mention all the relevant factors: the tension between second homes and first homes, skill shortages in the building sector, the dominance of large builders, slow buildout rates and getting the balance right in social housing between new build on the one hand and maintenance of existing stock on the other. I hope other noble Lords will fill the gaps. Nor have I mentioned the many good things this Government have done, a deficiency that I know my noble friend, whose commitment to good housing I applaud, will remedy.
Finally, the next Minister will need what I call a following wind—public opinion. In 1966 “Cathy Come Home” did for homeless young families what “Mr Bates vs The Post Office” has done for sub-postmasters. It mobilised public opinion, drove housing up the agenda so that political parties had to respond, and gave birth to Shelter.
My most formidable opponents—Des Wilson and Sheila McKechnie of Shelter—were also my greatest allies. Their tireless, well-targeted and well-informed campaigning was deeply uncomfortable, but it strengthened my bargaining position with the Treasury and more broadly within the Government. We will need that following wind to open the door that was slammed in the face of a whole generation. I beg to move.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for initiating this debate and for his comprehensive presentation. I am afraid this is going to go from the sublime to the gorblimey now.
This debate is one to which my noble friend the late Lord McKenzie of Luton would have probably been first to sign up. His knowledge of all aspects of housing need and his understanding that dealing with it was an integral part of tackling poverty were second to none. He was gentle and forensic in his questions to Ministers, seemingly diffident, but a towering force in his campaigning for more social housing and safeguarding jobs in the construction industry.
I had been in the House for only two or three weeks when, on 8 July 2010, there was a debate on social housing, in which the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, made his maiden speech, on rural housing, and my noble friend Lord Touhig made his maiden speech, on housing in Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Best, participated in that debate, and I am so pleased that he is here for today’s proceedings. Lord McKenzie gave the usual comprehensive speech that you would have expected. He was proud of the fact that the Labour Government had launched the largest council house building programme for almost two decades. He regretted the fact that the coalition Government were about to sweep away proposals for a national register of landlords—does that sound familiar?—the regulation of letting and managing agents and the requirement for compulsory written tenancy agreements.
Today, in a debate on housing initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Young, with the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, all genuine experts, putting my name down feels a bit bold. Plenty has been written in Lords reports on intergenerational fairness and the impact of student loans and consequent debt, so I will not be concentrating on those aspects.
I do not think that there was any golden age for housing for young people. I was 38 when I bought my house in London, after 13 years in four bed-sits, only one of which was en suite, as we call it nowadays—we would not have known what that meant in those days. The difference now is that someone on my then equivalent salary would not be able to buy a house without financial assistance from the bank of mum and dad or some government wheeze. The other difference, in the 1960s and 1970s, was that there would not have been so many banks of mum and dad available, and we were used to a lower standard of housing—at least, some of us were.
London is a different world from the rest of the UK when it comes to housing. For instance, there has always been a tendency for young professionals to move out of London when they start raising a family. It used to be when the children were approaching secondary school. Now, they move out when the children reach primary school age. This may explain why so many primary schools are closing in London. Most public sector workers in London with childcare expenses to pay would not be able to buy a house in London. This impacts on the ability to recruit and retain the best staff in London, particularly in Westminster and Whitehall.
The Home Builders Federation has stated:
“The UK is a very unaffordable place to buy or rent a home, and increasingly so”.
It echoed what has already been said:
“House prices in the UK have been growing faster than incomes and this disparity is greater than when compared to the EU benchmark”.
Belgium and France have seen house prices fall slightly as a proportion of income, and Finland has ensured that both rental and buying are more affordable.
In the UK, owner-occupiers aged 25 to 34 have dropped by 12% in 20 years. The average age of first-time buyers is increasing—last year, it was 33.5 years —while 58% of first-time buyers were among the highest earners. Research from the Resolution Foundation found that lower home ownership rates among young people mean that
“millennials spend longer in the private rented sector … a typical private renter spent over a third … of their net income on housing costs, more than three times the proportion of net income that a typical mortgagor devoted to their mortgage interest payments”.
I spoke to some of my neighbours when they moved in—young professional women sharing a rented house. Their rent was such that they would never be able to save for a mortgage. It is not a house in multiple occupation; a common feature, particularly in London, is that landlords sidestep HMO requirements and let the house to one name only, so they do not have the safety requirements. That is all too common, and there are not the resources in local government to ensure that it is stopped. If councils were properly funded, they would have an important role to provide accommodation for young people; the GLC, for instance, had a scheme for hard-to-let dwellings.
However, since 2010, councils have had a 60% cut in spending by central government. Government Ministers, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, has said, encourage councils to be more entrepreneurial and raise their own funds. In 2015, the Government abolished the Audit Commission, which kept a check on local government spending; this was an appalling act of irresponsibility.
This week’s New Statesman contains an article about the dire financial state of local government. It gave the example of Hastings in East Sussex as
“a borough full of Airbnbs and Londoners moving in and pushing up house prices”.
Hastings is spending nearly half its annual budget on temporary accommodation. The council leader has called for a Ukrainian refugee-style scheme to house local people in spare rooms.
The director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has indicated that house price rises since rates were last set mean that the average property in the Westminster council area is taxed at 0.06% of its value, while a far cheaper property in Hartlepool is taxed at 1.3%. We all know that it would be a brave Government that did something about rateable values.
What difference do the various government schemes make? The Home Builders Federation has indicated that the closure of the Help to Buy equity loan scheme has exacerbated the challenge facing aspiring home owners. It states that the scheme supported a third of a million first-time buyer households to purchase a new-build home with an equity loan. It claims that it produced “a doubling in housing supply” and generated an estimated £65 billion in economic activity. What it does not say was that Help to Buy benefited those who could probably have afforded a house anyway, and the resulting inflation of house prices made it impossible for the lower-paid to put a foot on the housing ladder. This was taxpayers’ money, which would have been better spent on social housing.
My only question to the Minister is about the First Homes scheme, which was launched in 2021. Is there any information she can give us about how the scheme is going, and is there any consideration of expanding it?
Finally, I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Young, the other day that I am a fan of “Homes Under the Hammer” on television, and I like to think I can guess the price of a house anywhere in the UK. Key factors are whether it is in the north or south, whether it has transport links, the presence or absence of higher education institutions and the increasing numbers of younger entrepreneurs in the south who are buying houses in the north to refurbish and rent or sell off —or “flip it” in the jargon. Skills shortages and the steep cost of raw materials are slowing things down. Solving the issue of housing for young people is not a one-dimensional issue, therefore, and the Government’s record on local government, infrastructure skills, support for refurbishment schemes and controlling the cost of living is pretty woeful. This debate is an important opportunity to air these matters.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy for her contribution. I know how she feels: when one is speaking after the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and with the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, in the wings, one knows that all the bases will not only have been covered but covered very well.
One of the most powerful cultural myths over the past century has been the belief that if you work hard, you will earn enough to buy yourself a house and start a family. For a long time, it held true. Between the end of the First World War and the turn of the millennium, rates of home ownership climbed rapidly, topping out at about 70%, as young adults flew the parental nest and set up homes of their own. It was what we did.
We now know that in most respects this is no longer true; the myth has been well and truly busted. There is a powerful and growing body of evidence from a wide range of academics, think tanks and charities working in this area that the opposite is in fact true; the breakdown of the housing conveyor belt has already happened, and is already causing huge and diverse impacts. Studies show that the inability to afford a home causes people to postpone starting a family or not to have children at all. High housing costs also divert individuals away from productive places and activities, and dramatically increase inequality in wealth and between regions. Housing affordability—the ratio of what you earn to what you can afford to rent or buy—was last as bad as it is now when Queen Victoria was on the Throne.
In 2021, the Resolution Foundation did a crucial stocktake of generational differences, and found that millennials were far less likely than previous generations to own their own home and more likely to find themselves in the private rented sector. They are the first generation who are in a worse position than previous cohorts in terms of home ownership, obtaining social housing or finding a secure, affordable, private rented home wherever they might live. It makes depressing reading.
Interestingly, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the biggest shift has been with millennials on middle incomes—the people who hitherto would have expected to own their own home. Student loans, high deposits and higher interest rates have locked many into the rental market. The sector has seen increasing rents, making it difficult to save a deposit, as the percentage of income taken up with rent also increases. Recent data shows that people under 30 are spending more than 30% of their gross income on rent, more than any other group—30% being defined officially as unaffordable.
This has put pressure on the rental market; one estate agent described it to me as a beauty parade. Landlords can and do pick and choose; in the circumstances, who can blame them? Rents are rising and demand is growing. A recent Generation Rent survey showed that bidding wars and mass viewings are much more common. An anecdotal comment from estate agents is, “There’s always competition for rentals now”.
At the same time, we also hear that landlords are leaving the sector, or will leave if the Government remove Section 21 evictions. But are they? We have mixed messages. It is clear that they are moving to more lucrative short-term lettings such as Airbnb. The question for policymakers is: how do we actively incentivise landlords to move from short-term letting back to long-term, more secure tenures? I believe that this needs both carrot and stick, but I feel that government policy is concentrating on the stick. All the trends show that we need more private rented accommodation.
If even renting is not an option, young adults are back at home trying to save for a deposit, which in some areas is likely to take many years. This figure has also increased significantly. Results from the 2021 census found that more adults were living with parents in England and Wales than a decade previously. The ONS reported in 2021 that this equated to 4.9 million young adults—dare I say, young voters.
For me, a worrying trend is that we now seem to have a divided population of young people, and the inequalities between them are growing, as is their discontent. If you live in an affluent family, you will be fine. You will probably be helped with your deposit and regard it simply as getting your inheritance early. For those comfortably off, you might take equity release to give the youngsters their deposit or raid your retirement cushion that you have worked so hard to save, which now is not looking quite so plump.
Time was when low-waged young couples, such as the bus driver—my dad—married to the care assistant, might have been eligible for social housing, but no longer. The reduction in socially rented homes over decades has meant that a secure home to rent and put down roots in the community where you were raised is no longer possible for many, and it has changed the nature of social housing. In my home town of Preston, people were proud to have a council house. If you were on the Larches Estate, close to a beautiful park and rubbing shoulders with the posh parts of Ashton, you had hit the jackpot of affordable rent and secure tenure.
In a recent government survey of tenants, it was shocking to see that tenants now feel shame and stigma for being a social housing tenant. Bold solutions are needed. There is widespread clamour for more social and affordable homes; I would add shared ownership homes. In my view, mixed tenures and mixed estates are a positive way forward. Economic think tanks have also waded into the debate, pointing out the economic benefits of a significant increase in building these homes. It is win-win.
What worries me is that, shockingly, young people are the group most likely to experience homelessness. According to Centrepoint, more and more young people are approaching their local council for housing: 112,000 in 2021, an increase of 8% on the previous year. The data shows that unless they are afforded priority status by the local authority—for example, because they have come out of care—young people are frequently locked out of an already limited social housing supply. This means that they have to turn to sofa surfing, the unaffordable private rented sector, temporary accommodation or risking homelessness.
Government, housing providers and charities must work together in the long term to build a lasting coalition that aims to reinvigorate the social rented market and deliver new youth-specific housing products, which include one- and two-bedroom flats. My residents in Watford used to say, “Who wants to live in them?” Noticeably, as soon as they are erected, they are all filled. This should also be part of any mixed-tenure community.
Simply building more homes is not the answer. We need to build more social, affordable and shared ownership homes. The current emphasis on targets and numbers is demonstrably not working. Lots of expensive market-rate housing will not bring housing costs down to an affordable level for millions of people trapped in poverty by sky-high rents. Politicians are in a target-setting bidding war which perpetuates the myth that we can build our way out of this if only the planning system would improve, or this or that. But ramping up housebuilding will take many years to deliver and many more years to impact on house prices. In reality, nobody who wants a home wants that to happen, and the large housebuilders’ financial model will not let that happen. They build what they know they can sell in places where they know it will sell, not where it is needed or at a price that locals can afford.
We need to build and fund this housing differently, with much more diversity. We need to be braver and bolder and at least try to take the public with us and change the conversation towards those who are the future. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Young: in my experience, when it comes to opportunistic campaigning, no party has a monopoly on exploiting nimbyism.
My fear is that we have created a whole generation who increasingly feel politically isolated because their needs are not being met and their aspirations are unfulfilled. In short, they are being ignored by politicians because they are not home owners, and it is home owners who vote. They are yimbys, but the system forces politicians to listen to the nimbys, so no one is hearing their voice. Politically, that is a dangerous place to be. That is a subject worthy of its own debate.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, on whose remarks I will comment a bit later. Above all, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Young on securing this debate on one of the most important topics affecting the country.
We live in a property-owning democracy. That has been the objective of the Conservative Party, and probably shared by other parties, for many decades. The main form of property that most people can hope to own is their own home. We aspire to be a home-owning democracy, and we were achieving that. Before the First World War, only 15% of the population owned their own home. That rose to 70% by 2001. However, that was the peak, and from there it has declined to about 60%. Whereas each generation had been becoming home owners younger, the trend has reversed even more strongly: in 1997, 55% of 25 to 34 year-olds had got on to the home owner ladder, but that was down to 35% two decades later in 2017.
It is not just that young people cannot afford to buy. Many cannot afford to rent either, because rents and prices are inevitably linked and both reflect shortage. In the last two decades, the number of 25 to 34 year-olds living with parents has risen by 1 million. One-quarter of people in that age group still live at home with their parents. It is not surprising that, if young people cannot hope to join the property-owning democracy, they should begin to lose faith in democracy, which is what we hear from the opinion polls.
Let us be clear: this is not a problem that can be solved by manipulating mortgage terms, freezing rents or tinkering with the terms of tenure. That is just rearranging the deck chairs on the “Titanic”. As long as there is an imbalance between the number of dwellings and the number of people wanting to live in separate households, some of them are going to be disappointed. They will have to share properties, by staying at home with their parents, cramming together in bedsits or subdividing existing dwellings into smaller sub-units. We already have the smallest average size of home of any country in Europe, and we will be making them smaller. All the measures that I have heard about so far in this debate, such as a different form of tenure, would help one group, but if you help one group to get some of a fixed supply of housing then that means other people are not getting it. It does not solve the problem.
What about the long term? We had a debate on 29 February in the Moses Room on a long-term strategy for housing. Apart from my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lord Bailey—who is not here today—every single contributor said that their long-term strategy was to have a long-term strategy. They did not tell us what it would consist of, and it certainly did not deal with the problem.
All those speakers reminded me—I make no apology for repeating this—of the challenge that is laid down by Zen masters to their disciples. The Zen master asks his disciples, “Describe the sound of one hand clapping”. All these debates are the sound of one hand clapping. We heard the sound of supply—we will allocate it differently or even build a few more, although of course we all admit to being nimbys—but no mention of demand. I am afraid it is a simple matter of arithmetic. The supply is not adequate. If there are, say, 30 million dwellings and 33 million wannabe households, then 3 million wannabe households will not be able to live in separate dwellings; they will have to share, subdivide or stay at home. There are two possible solutions: build more homes or stop adding to the number of households. Those are the only two solutions which will resolve it in the long term.
Before the 2015 election, I was challenged by my local Liberal Democrats to attend a public meeting in Harpenden and oppose the subdivision of gardens and people building extra houses in their gardens. They had a public meeting, so I went along. They had a big, wonderful slogan that said: “Harpenden homes for Harpenden people”. I asked the audience of several hundred people how many were born in Harpenden. There were 14 of them. “All right,” I said, “You are the only people the Lib Dems will house and the other 180 had better leave”. We must not go for these cheap nimbyist slogans.
In the 2015 election, I was presented with an ultimatum by the civic society in Harpenden—much influenced by the Lib Dems—that, unless I opposed all new housebuilding in and around Harpenden, they would either run a candidate against me or support any candidate who would make such a promise. I naturally refused, but I did attend a big public meeting, where I passionately argued that it is a moral issue. We have to build more houses, including in places such as Harpenden. If we do not, then young people in this country will not be able to get on the housing ladder and our children and grandchildren will not be able to live nearer to us than several hundred miles away, such as in the Orkneys.
I began studying this issue back at the beginning of this century because my constituency and all constituencies in Hertfordshire were continually facing higher and higher targets for the number of homes they had to build. That struck me as very odd, because the number of people being born in Hertfordshire was less than the number of those dying, so the population should have been going down. Of course, it was not going down because people were moving out of London, which they were doing because people were moving into London. All 17 statements made by the Government on the subject said or implied that they were moving into the south-east of England from the rest of the United Kingdom. When I looked at the figures, I saw they were actually moving out of the south-east of England because prices were so high and they had to move further away from London. The inflow was all from abroad, but no one dared mention it.
At that stage, we were importing the equivalent of the population of Birmingham every decade. I wondered how we would house an extra Birmingham and still provide extra homes for our own young people and people born here. A few years later, it was the population of Birmingham every five years and then every three years. Over the last two years alone, we have imported the net equivalent of the population of Birmingham. Does anyone seriously imagine that we can meet their needs and the accumulated, pent-up and unsatisfied needs of the young people for whom we have not built any homes over the last few decades? We cannot. But will anyone in this debate mention it? No. Perhaps on this side there will be some. I would be delighted if they did.
There will not be any mention of it on the other side; there never is. They should be deeply ashamed, because it is such a serious problem. Unless they can explain and justify why they support continuing mass immigration before they have met the needs of the people of all colours, races and sizes who are already here—who were born and grew up here—they should be deeply ashamed. I fear that, once again, we will have a debate that, with the exception of noble Lords on this side, reflects the sound of one hand clapping—some talk about supply, but nothing about demand. Until we do something about demand, we have an insoluble problem.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, not just for securing this debate and getting it off to a brilliant start, but for his decades of highly distinguished policy action in addressing key housing issues. As usual, I agree with his words of wisdom so eloquently delivered today.
This debate is very timely: the housing crisis for those with nowhere to go represents a national emergency that demands our urgent attention. It is gratifying to hear just how much we all agree on the urgency of the situation. I declare my housing interests, as on the register. Currently, I chair the Devon Housing Commission. Noble Lords may think that acute housing shortages are a problem for London and the big cities, but they could hardly be more extreme than in the beautiful county of Devon. Fewer and fewer young people brought up in the county are finding it possible to buy a home of their own—and, over recent months, they have found it almost impossible to secure a rented home they can afford. The numbers of young households having to be placed in unsuitable temporary accommodation have increased by 100% and more over the last couple of years. Nationally, the dire situation is replicated in every locality, and there are now over 140,000 children in insecure, often highly unsuitable, temporary accommodation. This is becoming an increasingly significant part of the financial troubles afflicting so many local authorities.
A fortnight ago, many of your Lordships expressed support across party lines for a national strategy to get us out of this mess, as was championed in the Church of England’s report last year. A national strategy would set a broad vision for ending the housing crisis. It could be brought together and sustained over time by a statutory national housing committee, along the lines of the Climate Change Committee. The new committee would hold government—and, no doubt, a succession of Housing Ministers—to account.
In supporting this call for creating and monitoring a long-term housing strategy, I suggest that policymakers must prioritise the housing needs of younger households in two overarching ways: first, of course, by increasing supply overall and, secondly, by ensuring that the supply reaches those with modest incomes. Supply is the problem—
Lord Lilley (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Will this body dealing with a long-term strategy also consider the demand for housing? Will it have any control over the massive increase in demand coming from abroad? If not, what purpose will it serve?
Lord Best (CB)
Is this a debate about immigration or housing? There are two debates here. We are dealing with people who live and breathe and need a home, whom we face and talk to and meet on a daily basis. We are doing something for them, and questions of immigration are for a different debate.
It is unsurprising that there is not enough to go around when the Centre for Cities has found Great Britain to have a housing deficit of 4.3 million homes, compared with the European average. Our current arrangements for achieving a sufficient supply—at least meeting the Government’s target of 300,000 homes a year—have failed. The model used for the last 30 years has relied on a handful of volume housebuilders. These developers, irrespective of the delays caused by ridiculously underresourced planning departments, will build out only at a pace that ensures that prices need never be reduced. This means cutting production now, when higher interest rates have curbed price rises, just when we need to ratchet up supply.
We are all familiar with the well-known flaws of the housebuilder model: poor design and quality; betrayal of promises for affordable housing, green spaces and amenities; building on greenfields and avoiding brownfield sites; failing to train the workforce or to innovate; et cetera. The most recent Competition and Markets Authority report is the latest voice to support the quite different approach promoted by the Letwin review. Sir Oliver advocated that, to speed up and deliver the homes we need, local authority-owned but arm’s-length development corporations should be created, with CPO—compulsory purchase—powers to assemble and buy land on reasonable terms. These corporations would adopt a comprehensive master plan, borrow privately, fund the infrastructure and parcel out sites to social landlords, SME builders, specialist players and so on. In other words, to boost the quantity and quality of supply, Letwin recommends establishing publicly accountable development bodies that take back control from the oligopoly of major developers.
Let me turn to the ways of ensuring that the supply of new homes benefits those on average and below-average incomes—the half of the population who currently can access only a fraction of new housing supply. Top of the list comes direct development of so-called “social rented housing”: this part of the housing mix has been in decline for years. Social housing is down from 34% of the nation’s homes to just 17% because of sales of council housing and the low-level programme of new build.
On 6 February, when Secretary of State Michael Gove appeared before the Lords Select Committee on the Built Environment, he said:
“We need to aim to have a net addition of 30,000 for social rent every year”.
He noted that some would regard this as unambitious, but it sets a far higher target for social rent—for the housing associations and councils—than has prevailed in recent years. What is needed is government investment to actually make this happen.
Currently, the sector faces headwinds from higher interest rates, building safety remedial work, the decarbonisation and upgrading of older stock, and management and maintenance costs rising by more than rents. But this country now has a highly professional social housing sector that is very fully regulated and can respond to the opportunities whenever government comes forward with the necessary resources.
Increasing supply by building new homes is going to take decades to achieve availability and affordability for all. In the meantime, we need a shortcut both to tackle the temporary accommodation emergency and, over time, to enlarge the social housing pool. The Affordable Housing Commission recommended a national housing conversion fund for the purchase and modernisation of run-down, privately rented accommodation. This fund would pay for itself by avoiding the huge costs of temporary accommodation in the private sector and, in the long term, would help a rebalancing between the much-diminished social sector and the greatly expanded private rented sector. I detect signs that the Government are recognising the value of this approach: a fund mostly for refugees is operating on this basis.
Investment in social housing—including the regeneration of some existing council estates and older properties—has a big payback in reducing health inequalities, alleviating fuel poverty, saving housing benefit and homelessness costs, cutting carbon emissions and supporting education and employment objectives. The National Housing Federation’s latest report shows how investing in a really major expansion of social housing is self-financing in a relatively short timescale, so boosting affordable social housing—largely ignored in the Budget—does represent incredible value for public money.
All this is not to say that the desire of younger households for home ownership should be ignored. Owner occupation means a secure home where you can put down roots and do your own thing. Acquiring and accumulating a capital asset for your later life is a big bonus, but, most significantly, your housing costs as an owner will reduce over time as your mortgage is paid off, whereas, as a renter, your housing costs will keep rising inexorably. No wonder the Department for Work and Pensions is expressing alarm at the prospect of a massive increase in housing benefit payments when a much bigger proportion of renters retires and their incomes fall, while rents keep going up.
How can the drop in home ownership levels be reversed so fewer people fall on the wrong side of the dividing line between tenants and home owners that can last a lifetime? This inequality in life chances is particularly unfair for those young people who are paying rents in excess of the cost of a mortgage but who cannot also afford to raise tens of thousands of pounds for a deposit without parental funding.
Shared ownership—with some important tweaks—provides one solution. Government mortgage guarantees can be effective and are almost cost-free, although the latest arrears figures, following interest rate rises, show some concerning increases. To underpin first-time buying in these difficult times, restoring the safety net of support for mortgage interest to its former, more generous position would be sensible.
Meanwhile, there are huge advantages for young people of planners requiring a proportion of new homes to be designed for older people. By addressing the pent-up demand for attractive, affordable homes for downsizers—“right-sizers”—two goals are met. First, older people can move to warm, accessible, convenient and companionable accommodation, achieving huge savings for the NHS and for adult care services. Secondly, this triggers a whole chain of moves, making family homes, not least precious social housing for families, available for the next generation, helping the young people with whom we are particularly concerned in this debate.
Polls tell us that almost two-thirds of 18 to 34 year-olds say that they are more likely to support a political party that invests more in affordable and social housing. Manifesto writers, take note. Let all of us in this House recognise the crisis facing younger people today and resolve to be part of the solutions we all want.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I speak as an observer rather than as an expert. Your Lordships will be aware that I do defence, engineering, transport and things like that and do not normally get involved in housing, so it indicates that something is going seriously wrong if I have to intervene.
The purpose and effect of the UK’s planning system is to resist development, keep the rich rich, the poor poor, and the rest where they are. Before explaining why that might be, I should declare an interest as my wife is on the planning committee of the local parish council, and it is her duty to operate the system as she currently finds it.
In my opinion, since 2010 the Conservative Party has absolutely skewered the younger generations by making it impossible for them to buy their own house. Where they can, they must take out a mortgage with an imprudent multiple of salary and far too long to pay, as many noble Lords have already observed. Very frequently, they must rely on the bank of mum and dad to find the deposit and keep the payments affordable.
In the Thatcher era, a property-owning democracy was created, as my noble friend Lord Lilley, among others, observed. Even people with modest occupations could own their own house, and ordinary families could develop deep financial resources as a result—I think the noble Lord, Lord Best, touched on that. That ability to have deep financial resources was no longer confined to rich, landed classes.
We have now created a precariat. Apart from the employment uncertainties, many of our people cannot be confident of their accommodation as they are obliged to rent. In some cases, they are discouraged from working. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, touched on, there is an effect on the fertility rate, because they simply cannot have a family. It is no good my noble friend the Minister pointing to the sticking-plaster policy regarding Section 21 evictions, because it will probably make matters worse and not address the underlying problem of the lack of housing.
We have artificially restricted the supply of housing by means of the planning system and increased housing demand by means of immigration, but done nothing to restrict the supply of finance. What did noble Lords think was going to happen with the affordability of housing, even for people with good-quality employment? The planning system has become increasingly difficult to navigate and generally requires very deep pockets. This is not a problem for big organisations—ultimately they can appeal to the Secretary of State regarding their development, they can go to judicial review and they have all those tools—but for small developers it is hopeless. Therefore, the planning system keeps the rich rich.
I apologise for going slightly off-piste. There are multiple causes of our inability to improve the UK’s productivity, but one must surely be the malign effects of our planning system. Not only do we not build the housing that we need but we do not build, or allow to have built, sufficient small industrial premises. I live between Petersfield and Portsmouth. A few years ago I wanted to buy a small industrial unit of 1,300 square feet, below the small business exemption for rates. I needed it for my charitable engineering activities. I had the cash in the bank to pay for it, but I had to give up because there was nothing available to buy within 15 miles of where I lived. Interestingly, I detected from the Land Registry that a unit in a nearby industrial estate had been sold but had never even come on the open market. It all seemed to be by word of mouth.
When I look at SMEs local to home, I see that they are packed into units that are far too small and therefore internally poorly laid out. Furthermore, they are unable to invest in more equipment because they lack the space. This means that certain production processes must be undertaken elsewhere, but that uses transport with its associated emissions and other adverse effects.
Following on from the remarks by my noble friend Lord Lilley, we are increasing our population by about 1 million people per full Parliament, but we are steadfastly refusing to bring more and sufficient land into development, both for housing and for industrial use. It is all down to planning. The noble Lord, Lord Best, who I hold in very high regard, was very keen to keep this debate about housing and not immigration, but the fact of the matter is that the two are inextricably linked. If we keep increasing the population by 1 million every few years, we are bound to need more accommodation, both for people to live in and for industry. There is no getting away from it. It is no good talking about brownfield sites. The old industrial sites have already been turned into retail parks and housing estates up and down the country, but retail parks do not provide high added-value jobs, nor opportunities for improving productivity.
With all this, no wonder the support for my party among graduates of less than 50 years of age is apparently in single figures. I am very pleased to see that the party opposite regularly promises to reform the planning system. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, will be able to say a bit more about this. My noble friend the Minister will tell us what the Conservative Government have been doing to improve the planning system. The output that I have seen is our local plan. That plan seeks to measure the requirement for land for housing and employment, and then possibly meet the requirement—but, of course, it never does. We certainly never hear about any desire to create a slight glut of housing or employment premises. If there was a slight surplus of both housing and industrial units, employees and businesses could be ideally accommodated because something would be available immediately when required. Much has been said about affordable housing. What would happen if, in any particular area, there was a slight glut of up-market and more profitable-to-build housing? It is obvious that developers would move on to building affordable housing without any intervention from government or the planning system.
I go back to where I started. The purpose and effect of the UK’s planning system is to resist development and keep the rich rich, the poor poor, and the rest where they are.
Baroness Valentine (CB)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord for introducing this debate. I have been aware of housing challenges, particularly in London and Blackpool, for a long time, but the subject of this debate has encouraged me to look more intensely at the challenges facing the young and at the associated need for wraparound support for our most vulnerable. I work part-time for Business in the Community, focusing on regenerating forgotten places, and have served on the Peabody board.
Let me begin with the problem. There is a crisis in the provision of temporary accommodation. This adds to the financial woes of our local authorities, which are unfairly bearing the brunt of cost of living and post-Covid mental health challenges, with too little money. I have been conscious for a long time of the need to build more houses and bring costs down in London, and I am more newly aware of the shocking state of the housing available to poorer people in Blackpool. This failure to achieve both quantity and quality, as ever, hits the poorest in our societies worst. The latest data from Demos shows that 130,000 children are living in temporary accommodation, double the number in 2011. Councils in London are spending £90 million per month on temporary accommodation as a result of increased numbers and inflation, up 40% from last year. Of these London homeless people, roughly half are children—equivalent to at least one child in every classroom. A particular concern are care leavers, of whom around one-third become homeless in their first three years.
What does this mean for children living in substandard or temporary accommodation? These young people will have disrupted school lives and lower educational attainment, as around half of homeless children have to move school. Young homeless will then be significantly less likely to have a job—around half of Centrepoint users are NEET. Life expectancy will be drastically reduced, given the prevalence of mental and physical health problems. According to Shelter, over half of parents report that temporary accommodation is harming their children’s health. Research has shown that nearly half of the young homeless have mental health challenges.
In Claremont ward in Blackpool, the concentration of families in HMOs converted from old B&Bs gives rise to a subculture where, for instance, many youngsters will not leave their bedrooms post-Covid. There are shocking health statistics, partly caused by the quality of accommodation. In a ward of just 9,000 people, 2,500 have mental health problems, 1,400 have respiratory issues, 900 have diabetes and 600 have asthma. Blackpool hospital reserves 19 beds every single day for unplanned admissions from Claremont, costing £11 million a year.
At this point, I would like to call out the Department for Work and Pensions. I have a great deal of respect for much of its work; for example, I have worked jointly with the department on careers fairs. In Blackpool, however, two things are wrong. First, housing benefit is paid to landlords whose housing is slum standard, with some failing category 1 standards, which means risk of death. Secondly, the help given to jobseekers is given in person, but these youngsters will only engage online at the moment and the DWP does not offer an online interview option for them.
So where are the glimmers of hope? First, there needs to be an urgent focus on providing long-term funding to local authorities to deal with the temporary accommodation crisis in a way that is cheaper, better quality and better suited to the inhabitants. Part of this needs to be linked to wraparound services for these youngsters, who will otherwise end up costing the public purse a great deal more—quite apart from the moral case for doing so. Too often, the housing crisis and challenges in public services are spoken about as separate policy issues, but vulnerable young people and families are in such a difficult housing situation that it has a negative impact on their quality of life and increases their need for other services. We have gained a lot from specialisation of our public services; practice has become more professional and more evidence led. Bradford, in particular, has an impressive research project called Born in Bradford, which follows 13,500 families over 10 years. We know, however, that a failure to join up public services is costing the Government between £1.5 billion and £5 billion a year, according to Demos.
Right to Succeed works in left-behind communities to support the transformation of children and family services, bringing together services to focus on the most vulnerable families. In the process, it becomes clear that different services have different addresses for the same family, but Right to Succeed now has an evidence base for the success of this approach.
In this vein, I would like to mention Element, the social enterprise founded in London by my daughter, and Positive Transitions Pathway in Blackpool. Both these approaches involve focusing on the needs of the care leaver, providing life coaching and being available for support for as long as it takes. Blackpool Council also provides tailored tenancy management. The Element experience of care-leaver accommodation is that it comes in all shapes and sizes; some is public sector, some third and some private, and the quality differs between different providers across all sectors. The lack of regulation of private landlords tends to provide less good accommodation and weaker support. I am aware that some supported accommodation in Blackpool provides feeble support, despite being paid to provide support. In both places, there is an urgent need to introduce decent home standards in the private sector, especially if they are being paid by the public sector for that accommodation.
Let me end on some high points. Following what is known as a “seeing is believing” visit to Sheffield last year, led by Business in the Community, IKEA has offered to provide beds for the hundreds of local children who do not even have a bed to sleep in. Here are two quotes from the youngsters themselves. Fatima, a care leaver, says:
“Before going into Element, things were very difficult. I was struggling with idea of socialising with other people. However, from the beginning, I felt at ease and loved spending time with some amazing staff and young people. Element really helped build my confidence in speaking in front of people. I wouldn’t be where I am today without them”.
Finally, a young Blackpool homeless person said:
“My Positive Transitions officer has helped with loads of different things, and also encouraged and supported me to apply for an internship. I got the job, which has made a massive difference to my finances. I have been able to pass a training course and get a small motorbike. They really helped my transition to adulthood and made living alone a lot less overwhelming”.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate, and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, whom I have known for over 30 years, for his persistent and indefatigable approach to campaigning on housing.
I will talk about two specific macroeconomic societal issues, and then focus on planning and some possible solutions. I will talk first about quantitative easing—I draw noble Lords’ attention to an excellent article in the New Statesman of 1 March—and how it impacts young people. Essentially, the policy of quantitative easing, developed by the coalition Government in 2013 and euphemistically described by George Osborne as “active monetary policy”, actually created an asset price boom and had very significant distributional implications, making asset owners richer, as my noble friend Earl Attlee said, and leaving many young people locked out and relatively poorer. There is a reason, of course, why the polls show that only 8% of 18 to 24 year-olds intend to vote Conservative at the election. You cannot extol the virtues of capitalism if your target market cannot eventually own capital.
In 1979, the right-to-buy policy of the Conservative Party gave ordinary working people a real stake in their future and those of their families and communities. Over the last 10 to 14 years, we have failed to develop policies which similarly deliver for working people. We have seen a collapse in home ownership over the period of the last two or three Parliaments.
On the second issue, immigration, we absolutely have to look at demand. I am afraid that I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Best. Of course, I pay tribute to his expertise. If we are going to have a debate based on empirical evidence and honesty, and in good faith, we cannot ignore the implications of, and the massive changes wrought by, uncontrolled, unfettered immigration, whether it is illegal or, more likely, legal.
Last year, we built 204,000 homes against a target of 300,000. The French regularly build 400,000 to 500,000 homes. The Migration Advisory Committee says that a 1% rise in population generates a 1% rise in house prices. Uncontrolled immigration has a big effect on the rental market too. Net migration of 672,000 is something that cannot just be dismissed from the housing debate. In 15 years, that trend—
Baroness Valentine (CB)
On the subject of migration, as far as I recall, a very large number of migrants are students. I wonder whether the noble Lord would like to comment on student housing in that context?
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I am going to develop my argument in terms of numbers. We are looking at an increase to the population of 6.6 million people, to 74 million by 2036. The indicative figures are that in 15 years, we are going to have to build another 5.7 million homes, or 550,000 homes per annum.
In London, 20 people are chasing every flat. Some 40% of foreign-born individuals are in the private rented sector, as are 75% of new migrants, and 48% of all social housing in London is headed by someone who was not born in the UK. That is an issue that goes to the heart of fairness. I do not think it is defensible, and it is certainly not sustainable. It is about equity and community cohesion.
I want to talk about planning. I believe that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, although very much lauded, was a missed opportunity. The promise contained in the consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework of 2022 did not come to fruition; it was a missed opportunity. As my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said, the Government capitulated, regrettably, to the nimby, short-termist tendency in the Conservative Party. Robert Colville of the Centre for Policy Studies was quite right when he described that decision, or the decision to reject any housing targets, as “selfish and wicked”.
We have a situation in which scores of local planning authorities have paused, reviewed or abandoned their local plans. That has rendered obsolete previous commitments to local housing targets. It has given a green light to planning committees to block development across the country. The five-year land supply test was dumped, green-belt reviews stopped, and the housing delivery test watered down. This has exacerbated the problems of capacity: many principal authority planning departments have a shortage of well-qualified, experienced and commercially savvy planners in particular, and of properly resourced planning departments.
Reference has been made to the CMA report into the state of the housebuilding industry, published on 28 February. I am glad to say that it put to rest the persistent accusation that major housebuilders are land banking; there was no empirical evidence to support that. But even if they were, surely the broken planning system is logically inherently to blame. The CMA actually said that
“the planning system is exerting a significant downward pressure on the overall number of planning permissions being granted across Great Britain … insufficient to support housebuilding at the level required to meet government targets and … assessed need”.
It made particular reference to the impact on small and medium-sized builders.
I share with the House the observations of the former Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, James Palmer, who was also formerly the leader of East Cambridgeshire District Council. He says, quite rightly:
“Over the past 50 years the Local Plan system (or derivations of it) has failed to deliver the number of homes needed in England, yet we steadfastly refuse to change the way we plan for growth. Local Plans can create the illusion of promoting growth while simultaneously restricting housing development. A carefully drawn line in a town hall can turn landowners into lottery winners. Where developers don’t bring forward housing, landbanks arise. When landowners decide not to sell, new lines need to be drawn. What’s more, local authorities need only throw a cursory glance at what their neighbours are doing, which leads to disjointed and incoherent planning across wider geographies”.
That is a very important point.
The construction industry is still suffering a very difficult hangover from Covid, the Ukraine war, the rising costs of materials and energy, higher interest rates, and skills shortages. In my own area of the east of England, 17% of all business is construction-related—with £18 billion of output, according to the Construction Industry Training Board. Policy changes, especially in planning, have slowed down the construction of new houses, and this was predicted by the Home Builders Federation in March 2022. Professor Noble Francis, the economics director at the Bartlett School of Sustainable Construction, commented:
“There was a sharp fall in house building in December 2023 as house builders continued to focus on cost minimisation and completions for the subdued level of demand rather than starting new developments after the rise in mortgage rates in 2023 that priced out many new buyers, especially first-time buyers”.
Another issue, which we have discussed in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions, is quango overreach. As your Lordships will know, in August 2023, the Government announced that they would legislate on the impact of defective EU laws intrinsic in the nutrient neutrality regulations. Despite a promise of a £280 million investment over seven years to ameliorate these issues, protect precious habitats, tackle the issue of run-off from agriculture and upgrade wastewater works, your Lordships’ House decided to kibosh that legislation and force the Government to abandon it. We are now in a position where 120,000 homes, according to the Home Builders Federation, have been subject to a moratorium on new builds. That means an unelected and unaccountable quango, Natural England, has stopped 41,000 new houses being built in Norfolk and 18,000 in Somerset, just as an example. In what other advanced, liberal democracy would such a ridiculous and incoherent policy be tolerated?
I welcome some of the things the Government have done in the long-term plan for housing announced last month around SME builders; refocusing on repurposing public sector land and brownfield development; giving greater weight in the NPPF to the benefits of housing delivery in areas of residential housing shortages; and other areas, such as permitted development. But I am not convinced that it is radical enough.
We need to look again at residential estates’ investment trusts. We need tax breaks for supported living for older people. We need to repurpose planning fees to sufficiently resource planning departments. We need to bring back local plans that are up to date to deliver housing. We need to introduce a presumption in favour of development in small sites. We need to abolish stamp duty for all purchases of homes with an EPC rating of B or above. Housing is a national emergency. We also need a Cabinet Minister specifically focusing on housing, as well as a housing ministry. This and previous Governments have, regrettably, failed young people, but it is not too late to begin to develop a vision and an ambition to deliver both for them and for our country more widely.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the enormous contribution that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has made to the cause of housing over so many years. I jotted down a number of things that he said, and I will mention the top three in order of importance.
First, watch the Treasury like a hawk. For issues such as how you convert the very high amount paid to the private rented sector in housing benefit to construct homes for social rent, which would be a much better use of the money and increase the housing supply, that kind of debate needs to be had with the Treasury. Secondly, the best way to help younger buyers is to help older buyers—that is so true, for this should not become an intergenerational issue. Thirdly, we need more planners. That is quite clear. It must be done through enabling local planning authorities to charge and set their own fees. The noble Lord will remember the debates we had on the then levelling-up Bill, when the Government gave a little ground but nothing like enough to deliver what is needed.
A number of things have been said about net immigration by two or three noble Lords. What is being said is a misconception, because our housing problem has been developing over 30 years and the increase in immigration to its current level is comparatively recent. There is much published evidence to show that, over the last 30 years, we have built around 2 million homes too few. There has been a spike in net immigration figures in the last couple of years, one of the key reasons for which is the fact that the Government insist on counting overseas students in them. Many of those overseas students—
Lord Lilley (Con)
They also count them when they go out. So, if they come in and go out, they account for zero in total.
Lord Shipley (LD)
The noble Lord is absolutely correct, but the Government, through deliberate policy over the last few years, have been increasing the number of overseas students. The result is that there are more coming in than going out. Statistically, the number is currently in decline, as we were told in a debate a few days ago, so I think he needs to take a slightly longer-term view. As the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, said, many of those students are in the student accommodation units that have proliferated in many of our university towns and cities. When we debate housing, we need to be a little more measured about what the cause and effect actually are.
A key reason why the population is rising is that people are living longer. Another reason why we need more houses is that our housing stock is poorer than those of a number of other countries. We absolutely have to increase the supply overall, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said. I am not sure whether the Centre for Cities estimate that we have a deficit of 4.3 million homes is right—it may be.
This debate is about the first-time buyer. I remember owning my own home at the age of 25. My wife and I bought our first home on a 95% mortgage, worth 2.5 times my income. Many more young people were able to buy or to secure rented accommodation at an affordable price in those days. That is what this debate is about: in recent years, the number of young adults who own their own home has fallen. As we have heard, more young adults are living at home. Too many are priced out of ownership and into the high rents of the private rented sector, because investment in social housing has been so low. Had those homes been properly replaced between the Government’s decision to sell council homes and now, we would have many more homes than we currently do.
Housing has become so expensive at a time when incomes are under greater stress. The number of first-time buyers fell to a 10-year low in 2023, partly due to the cost of mortgages. I find these facts disturbing. It is particularly disturbing when you realise that the people who are suffering most are those young people who are not graduates. A lot of research evidence has been published on this. We have to increase the supply side, and in that the noble Lord, Lord Best, is absolutely correct.
The Government have tried a number of initiatives that we should support. I think we need more long-term, fixed-rate mortgages and more gradual home ownership schemes, and not just for new build. It is a worry that last week’s Budget lacked so much real substance on housing. It did not address the basic problem of high house prices caused by high land costs leading to insufficient supply. We have had this shortfall in new homes being built year after year, with the Government counting conversions from business premises to homes as new homes. These are often flats and quite small. The real problem is the need for more homes that families can use.
There has been a lot of discussion around brownfield sites. I have believed for a long time that we have to move to a brownfield presumption. I am quite content with the views of the Secretary of State on that matter. Lichfields says that 1.6 million homes could be unlocked on brownfield sites. Homes England has just published its plans for the next five years and it is really good that its top key performance indicator is the amount of brownfield land reclaimed. However, are there enough brownfield sites? The Northern Housing Consortium said in a report published two weeks ago that there is an 82% shortfall of brownfield capacity in the north of England. If the Centre for Cities is correct that we need more than 4 million new homes and Lichfields is correct that only 1.6 million can go on to brownfield sites, there is a gap which can be filled only by better planning, proper housing supply policies and faster building on the brownfield sites that we can build on.
I see much to recommend the proposal that we should move towards a rules-based system. I am very taken by the report from the Competition and Markets Authority which recommended a streamlining of the planning system, with more homes built and more homes that are genuinely affordable. The regulator has called for significant intervention, which I welcome.
However, I am very surprised to learn that nearly half of local planning authorities lack a five-year housing supply; of the 72 northern local planning authorities, 23 have no five-year housing supply. As a number of noble Lords did, I listened on the “Today” programme this morning to the experience of a community-led housing initiative in Bristol which plans to have 100 units of 100% affordable housing. It has been months in the planning system, unable to get its applications through. One application had a six-month wait simply to get a case officer. The solution is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said: let local authorities set their own planning fees. The solution of going straight to the inspectorate is not adequate.
In conclusion, a number of noble Lords have said that we need more small construction companies. Post Covid, this really matters. We cannot just rely on the big housebuilders. The small construction companies are building only 15% of homes today; they used to build 40% before the housing crash. If Homes England could look at how it gets smaller construction companies back into the market, it would help enormously with solving some of the problems of first-time buyers.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for tabling this most important debate and, as always, for sharing his very considerable expertise and for all the work that he has done in the past and in your Lordships’ House to champion housing and the many issues related to housing and planning. As usual, he does not clap with one hand. He raised some important issues around downsizing incentives, incentivising to sell properties from the private rented sector and institutional finance, especially pension funds. That is something we definitely have to look at. It would resolve some of the investment issues that were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I am not so sure about his idea on lifetime tenancies, but we need to have a look at more issues around tenancies.
I thank my noble friend Lady Donaghy for her words and for reminding us of the inspirational Lord McKenzie, who I knew very well. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I agree with him on the right-to-buy issues. Just this week we learned that the retention of right-to-buy receipts at 100% has been cancelled by the Secretary of State—a completely incomprehensible decision.
It is shocking to realise that this year we have over 136,000 young people aged between 16 and 25 who are approaching their councils as homeless. This represents a 5% increase on the year before. Even worse, this is the very tip of the iceberg. The median age of people presenting as homeless is just 32, with many being much younger. There is also a gender issue: for females presenting as homeless it is even younger, at just 25. With homelessness increasing dramatically across the country, as we have heard in so many recent debates in this House, it is worrying to see the evidence that those who become homeless at a young age will be far more likely to face multiple long-term challenges.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for starting with two anonymised stories from my casework which illustrate some of the many issues that lead to homelessness and to hidden homelessness. The first is Alison, a qualified nurse working in the NHS. She came to my surgery and asked very calmly whether we thought that it was reasonable that she had been sleeping on the sofa at a friend’s house for seven years. She patiently explained the issues that this caused in relation to her shift work. As a single working woman in her late 20s, she was very low priority for social housing, but her low salary and the scarcity of affordable private rented accommodation excluded her from those options. She was too concerned about the pressure on her finances to seek a mortgage and had little enough money left at the end of the month to save for a deposit anyway. Alison was one of the hidden homeless, which I will talk about more later. Her case illustrates just how skewed allocation policies have become, in terms of homelessness prevention, for all but the most extreme cases.
Shannon also came to see us. She had been thrown out of the family home when she told her dad that she was gay. He had attacked her with a whisky bottle and told her never to come near the house again. Shannon had a pet dog which gave her emotional support in this awful situation. Although keeping him excluded her from much of the emergency hostel-type accommodation, she could not bear to part with him. She was working full-time in a restaurant, so she slept outside the restaurant in the bushes and then washed and changed in the restaurant before starting work.
This illustrates one of the many types of family breakdown that can lead to young people becoming homeless. We all know that there are multiple potential causes of homelessness among our young people and that the chronic undersupply of housing—of all tenures but particularly affordable rented and social rented homes —makes matters far worse for them. For some of our young people, it is simply the lack of support networks from family or community that would help them navigate the complexities of securing housing in this country. Family breakdown because of parental conflict, as in Shannon’s case, divorce, abuse or neglect, domestic abuse or bereavement, can all lead to homelessness, as can their own or a carer’s mental health issues.
We had a powerful debate in your Lordships’ House recently on poverty, led by the noble Lord, Lord Bird. We all know that poverty is the major driver of homelessness. For young people, this can mean their parents can no longer afford to have them living at home, and with over 1.2 million families now living in poverty, this brings an enormous impact. Financial deprivation stays with those young people. While for some, the bank of Mum and Dad will help with housing or rental deposits, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for others whose early life may also have been marked by housing insecurity, no such facility exists.
There are other groups more at risk too, including those from black, Asian and other minority ethnic groups, young people from the LGBT+ community and young asylum seekers and refugees. There are also regional disparities: the north-east has the highest level of youth homelessness in the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Best, often refers, rightly, to the disparities of housing availability in rural areas. Every year, as the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, mentioned, 100,000 young people leave local authority care, and this group are particularly at risk of homelessness. Some 14% of them will have slept rough and 26% will be sofa surfing. It is vital that the corporate parenting role undertaken with looked-after children does not hit a cliff edge when they reach 18. Most parents will know that young people making the transition into adult life is the point at which they need more support, not for it to come to an end. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government have given thought to how this transition may be better managed and housing policy designed to support young care leavers?
We saw the considerable efforts made to tackle rough sleeping during the pandemic, and more can be done to learn the lessons from this, including considering the “invest to save” impact of schemes such as Housing First, where emergency accommodation is provided alongside a package of support for complex needs. Are the Government looking at schemes like this around the country to help prioritise funding decisions and what comparative assessment has been done with some of the initiatives being developed in Wales and Scotland?
Rough sleeping is the tip of the iceberg: many people will be living the precarious life of sofa surfing, hostels and temporary accommodation. That can be entirely unsuitable for vulnerable young people: just imagine a vulnerable young female care leaver in a shared house with violent ex-offenders. This hidden homeless issue continues to get worse as there are few statistics collected, either on the numbers or on the impact this has on the lives of young people. Can the Minister tell us whether any work is going on in government to address this?
As usual, many local authorities—including my own, through Herts Young Homeless—have stepped up, despite the financial situation, with a range of interventions to tackle homelessness among young people. These include: prevention and early intervention to provide mediation to resolve family conflict; talking to young people in schools about housing and homelessness; crisis support which ensures that young people at risk of homelessness can access advice and guidance quickly and that, where necessary, they can access other support such as for emergency mental health needs; independent living support for young adults who do not have that support from friends or family; and advice on funding the housing, setting up bill payments, managing money, cooking, jobseeking and how to manage independent living.
The best local areas have Future Roots programmes, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, that provide tailored transition for vulnerable young people with supported living accommodation until they are ready to live independently. Although these approaches are best practice, they are not universal. Are the Government taking more steps to promote and share this best practice, preferably incentivised with some funding, and has any analysis been carried out of the long-term benefits of such preventive steps?
At the heart of this problem is the wider problem of the crisis in housing supply of all tenures. Noble Lords have referred to many of the interventions that will be needed to address that. The record on housing is simply not good enough. If the situation continues as it is, we will see further generations of young people whose life opportunities are limited by poor housing, with consequential impacts on their education, health and employment. That is why my party’s plan to build 1.5 million homes over the course of the next Parliament is at the heart of the surge we need to kickstart a housing recovery plan. We must restore the targets removed by the Secretary of State last year, as other noble Lords have mentioned. If we do not have targets locally, how will we ever achieve a national target? For young people it is social homes that often provide the start in adult life that they need. Last week, the outstanding report by Cebr for Shelter and the National Housing Federation showed conclusively that building 90,000 social homes each year would have a combined socioeconomic value of around £50 billion—last year, we built just 9,000.
Young people are disproportionately affected by practices in the private rented sector and leasehold markets. Some of them move very frequently, at a cost estimated by the Renters Reform Coalition of around £1,700 each time they move. We hoped that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill and the Renters (Reform) Bill would scrap the tenure of leasehold and end the injustice of Section 21, but we now find that both those Bills have been watered down. I hope we will get the chance to reinstate some of those promises in your Lordships’ House.
My parents were given the start they needed for their married and family life by opportunities presented in Britain’s first post-war new town, Stevenage. That is why I was so delighted to hear my party’s pledge of a new generation of new towns, based on sustainable principles and with communities enjoying a quality of life that balances economy, environment and social aspects with high-quality housing, including a new social housing renaissance. We need a long-term housing strategy that gets the houses built that we know we need, through a planning system designed for the builders, not the bureaucrats. Labour will undertake a complete reform of planning to unblock it and get Britain building. I do not have time to go into the detail today, but I think we should have another debate on that. For our young people, what we need within that housing strategy is a national plan to tackle young homelessness, before we undermine the potential and opportunities of another generation of young people by failing them on housing.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, is right to point out that there have 16 Housing Ministers since 2010; that does not help. This Government have had 14 years to address the chronic housing problems this country faces, which are still getting worse. Is it not time we had a general election, to give these young people their future back?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham for bringing forward this important debate, and also for the continued passion and knowledge that he gives to this House about the sector. I appreciate his challenge, as I am sure many others in the Chamber do. This is an important debate about the needs of young people within the overall housing market and I thank all other noble Lords who have spoken today for their considered and insightful contributions.
Throughout the debate, we have heard about the challenges the younger generation of this country face in achieving home ownership, and in accessing affordable housing to rent. Securing affordable, decent and stable homes is critical to ensuring young people can meet major life milestones, move for career opportunities, and start a family. The Government are committed to delivering the warm, safe, decent and affordable housing needed to support them through their life journeys.
Young people are part of a housing market significantly different from the one experienced by previous generations. Children of home owners are over twice as likely to be home owners than children of renters—an issue raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Donaghy and Lady Thornhill. The dependence on the bank of mum and dad, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Attlee, to afford a home shows the difficulties in accessing the housing ladder. This is reflected in how the historic home ownership rate for those aged 25 to 34 has fallen from 51% in 1989 to 28% in 2019.
The Government have worked hard to reverse these historic trends with our long-term housing strategy. We have made huge strides since 2010 to increase home ownership, provide stability and security for those renting, and improve the quality of houses young adults own and rent. This will ultimately improve their life outcomes and quality of life. The hundreds of thousands of new homes we are delivering will create the homes young people need now and in the future. I am proud of the progress this Government have made to deliver on these priorities, but we cannot stop. We will therefore continue to press ahead in meeting these challenges.
First, almost all noble Lords brought up the planning system. We have built more homes in places young people want to live, and at prices that they can afford. Since 2010, over 2.5 million additional homes have been delivered, and the four highest rates of additional housing supply in over 30 years have all come since 2018. Increasing housing supply is at the heart of solving our housing challenges; crucial to that is reforming our planning system. Not only must we have enough homes in the right places, we must also have homes suitable for those with a range of needs, including those with disabilities and special care needs, and the vulnerable.
My noble friends Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Attlee raised important questions about how we are unblocking the planning system to deliver the houses that we need in the places where we need them. Building on our work since 2010, in December 2023 the Government revised the National Planning Policy Framework in response to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. The framework sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how we expect them to be applied. While the Government’s standard method for assessing local housing need is used to assess the total number of homes needed in a local area, the framework makes it clear that local authorities should assess the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups, including young people, young people with disabilities, care leavers and students.
Government housing targets have not changed. We remain committed to our ambition to deliver 300,000 homes a year. The Secretary of State’s Written Ministerial Statement of 6 December 2022 confirmed that the standard method for assessing local housing need will be retained. The Government have made it clear that every local authority is expected to progress their local plans. If sufficient progress is not made, the Secretary of State will consider using his powers of intervention to ensure that plans are put in place. We also recently consulted on proposals to implement reforms to plan-making processes to ensure that plans are prepared in 30 months. The reason for that is that we know that local authorities that have up-to-date local plans deliver more houses.
The Government have in place a strong programme of support to upskill the capacity and capability of local planning authorities, as raised by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. This includes a £13.5 million “planning super-squad” of leading planners and other experts that will deploy teams of specialists into planning authorities to accelerate development and a £29 million planning skills development delivery fund to help planning authorities deal with the backlog of planning applications ahead of the forthcoming changes to the planning system through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. To ensure that local authorities are doing everything they can to build the homes that are needed, in February this year the Secretary of State set out clear expectations for every council in England to prioritise building on brownfield developments —a key point raised by my noble friend Lord Jackson.
However, it is not enough just to build more houses. The Government are committed to ensuring that the planning system creates more beautiful and sustainable buildings and places everywhere, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The duty introduced through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act for all local councils to produce a design code at the spatial scale of their authority area will give design codes significant weight when planning applications are determined, and the establishment of the Office for Place will support the creation of healthy, beautiful places. This Government will not compromise on quality and beauty.
Turning to housing supply, an area raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, with regard to the 300,000 target, I recognise the significant challenges faced by the housebuilding sector in the current economic climate. The Government continue to prioritise support to the industry and local areas as part of our commitment to deliver 1 million new homes over the lifetime of this Parliament, which we are on track to deliver. This is critical in ensuring that housing across that the market is affordable—a crucial topic raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. We are investing billions to support housebuilding and achieve that commitment, including through our £1 billion brownfield, infrastructure and land fund, and to manage different drivers of demand, such as migration—an important area raised by my noble friend Lord Lilley. Our £1.2 billion local authority housing fund is providing capital funding directly to councils. It will provide capital funding to local authorities to obtain better-quality temporary accommodation for those owed homelessness duty and to provide safe and suitable homes for those on the Afghan resettlement schemes—an extremely important point noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine.
As my noble friend Lord Jackson mentioned, ensuring that we are facilitating institutional investment in housebuilding in this country is of paramount importance. The £1.5 billion Levelling Up Home Building Fund leverages institutional investment from both private capital and pensions to achieve our ambitions.
My noble friend Lord Jackson and the noble Lord, Lord Best, raised the recent Competition and Markets Authority report on housebuilding. I welcome the report. The Government will carefully consider the findings and the recommendation to formally respond to it within 90 days of publication.
I want to note where we have made substantial progress through our delivery of affordable homes, an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, in particular. Since 2010 we have delivered almost 700,000 new affordable homes, making it easier for young people to access the housing ladder. We have scaled up the delivery of affordable housing by investing £11.5 billion through the affordable homes programme, working ambitiously towards meeting our target of a quarter of a million new affordable homes.
At the same time, we have taken steps to reduce demand competition. Although the expansion of the short-term lets market has brought a range of benefits, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, we want to ensure that housing continues to be affordable. That is why the Government have announced a mandatory national short-term lets registration scheme to provide valuable information to local authorities in supporting the application and enforcement of planning changes. The Government also introduced higher rates of stamp duty land tax in April 2016 for those purchasing additional properties.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, raised the issue of the Church of England’s report Coming Home, which argued that an ambitious approach is needed to solve the housing challenges facing this country. As he said, it was debated in detail on 24 February, when the Government set out the comprehensive long-term housing strategy in responding to those challenges.
Turning to home ownership, the Government have a robust programme of interventions. My noble friend Lord Young, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, raised the important question of how we are making it easier for young people to buy their own home. One key programme to note, shared ownership, is a unique scheme targeted at first-time buyers. It allows young people to purchase a share of a home through a mortgage while paying rent at below-market value on the rest of the home. Over time, young people can buy more shares, until they have bought the home in its entirety. I have seen many schemes like this and how pleased young people, particularly young families, are when they feel they are getting towards owning that home of their own.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Many young people who have gone into those schemes are now having incredibly high service charges imposed on them, and we need to come back to that issue when we look at the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill. In a case I saw today, the charge had gone up from £94 a month to over £600, and as a result that young couple cannot sell the property or afford to live in it. The colloquial term for this is “fleecehold”. We need to think very carefully about those schemes.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Baroness is right, and I have heard similar stories. That is why we have the leaseholder Bill coming through, which we will be debating in just a few weeks’ time.
In 2022-23, of those reported to my department, an estimated 77% of shared ownership purchases were made by first-time buyers and 33% of those purchases were made by buyers under the age of 30—a testament to the effectiveness of the action of this Government. Furthermore, our First Homes scheme offers first-time buyers under the age of 40 a minimum 30% discount on the price of an eligible new home, helping the younger generation get a foothold on the property ladder. The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, asked for further detail on what the programme has delivered. I have only the top line, which is that there were 1,250 completions through the First Homes early delivery programme to the end of September 2023. If the noble Baroness wants more detail, she is welcome to come and ask me.
Through our lifetime ISA scheme, we have helped more than 56,000 account holders to become first-time buyers. More recently, we have recognised and responded to the challenging market conditions for lenders and buyers alike through the introduction of the mortgage guarantee scheme. This supports participating lenders to continue providing 5% deposit mortgages. We have extended this until June 2025 so that we can continue providing this vital support.
My noble friend Lord Young raised the question of stamp duty, land tax and cutting capital gains tax when landlords sell to sitting tenants. The Government have already taken action by cutting stamp duty during the pandemic, up to March 2025. This is reducing the financial burden on first-time buyers across the country, but particularly in and around London and the south-east, where these pressures are felt most acutely. On cutting capital gains tax for landlords’ sales to sitting tenants, this is not a policy the Government are currently considering. Taxation is a matter for the Chancellor and any decisions he takes on tax are considered, obviously, in the context of the wider public finances.
On the work of government on preventing homelessness and rough sleeping, as raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Valentine, I want to set out the measures we have prioritised to prevent vulnerable people—young people particularly—such as care leavers ending up homeless. In 2022 we published our cross-government strategy Ending Rough Sleeping for Good, which recognised that young people face particular challenges accessing and maintaining accommodation.
For young people with disabilities, my department, alongside the Department for Health and Social Care and the NHS, provides capital grant funding to subsidise the delivery of a new supply of supported housing, including for disabled people. Young people with disabilities who satisfy needs-assessment eligibility criteria and a means test benefit from a wider statutory duty to provide home adaptions. There are powers to provide adaptions for those who do not qualify under that duty. Under this Government, the disabled facilities grant has risen from £220 million in 2015-16 to £625 million in 2024-25—a more than doubling of the grant. This has been well received by disabled people.
When young people do find themselves homeless or at risk of homelessness, within the next 56 days they are owed a homelessness duty by their local authority. Our single homelessness accommodation programme will deliver over 650 homes and support services for young people in this situation. This is in addition to other support, including the £109 million top-up to the homelessness prevention grant for councils and an initial £6 million for rough sleeping winter pressures.
Many of our young people want to be free to move to places where they can connect their talents with economic opportunities before choosing to settle down. This is where the private sector steps in. Increasing security and quality in the private rented sector requires ambitious reforms and the Government have stepped up to deliver. We have introduced the Renters (Reform) Bill, which will support tenants with a raft of measures, including applying the decent homes standard to the private rented sector for the first time and abolishing Section 21 evictions. The Bill is awaiting Report in the other place, which is subject to parliamentary scheduling, and it will be announced in the usual course of business management. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that the proportion of private rented sector households has remained relatively stable for nearly a decade, and the number of renters has doubled since 2004.
For those in the social rented sector, we have enshrined in law, through the Social Housing (Regulation) Act, a rebalancing of the relationship between landlord and tenant. We are ensuring that landlords are held to account for their performance—an important step in improving the quality of houses across the market, which was an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine. We are creating a housing market fit for the future.
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill will reform the outdated leasehold system in this country. From 2025, the future homes standard will future-proof our homes, ensuring that new homes produce at least 75% less CO emissions than those built to previous standards. We know that making long-term changes takes time to deliver, and the Government are doing all they can against a challenging economic background to ensure that the younger generation can access affordable, safe and high-quality housing.
Following the £188 million allocation to the housing projects in Sheffield, Blackpool and Liverpool at the Convention of the North on 1 March, last week’s Spring Budget allocated over £240 million to housing projects in London, an area where affordability is challenging, particularly for young people, as we have heard today.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and others brought up intergenerational housing. I totally agree with them that we need better older people’s housing and more choice for older people because, if we give them better housing and more choice, we can start to move the housing stock around. Some local authorities are doing that really well, but more can be done. The Government’s independent older people’s housing task force is looking at housing for older people, and it will make its final recommendations to Ministers this summer.
I hope I have answered as much as I can—
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
There is consensus across the House, among Members of all parties and none, that we should reinstate the local housing targets. Nevertheless, 65 local planning authorities have frozen their local plans. Is my noble friend in a position to explain or tell the House when the Secretary of State is likely to invoke his statutory powers to force those local planning authorities to come up with local plans?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I cannot say when he will do that; all I can say is that the Act is now in statute. The NPPF is now being updated, so we will encourage and support those local authorities to get the local plans in place as soon as possible.
I am being told I have run out of time, so, in conclusion, we fully recognise the unique housing needs of young people and the importance of homes to their lives. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring those needs are met, whether that be through home ownership, the private rented sector or social housing. This debate has served as a valuable reminder of the critical responsibility we share in supporting the next generation and making sure that the housing market works for all. I once again thank my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham for bringing forward this debate and all noble Lords for their contributions today. I look forward to continuing discussions and working with noble Lords on issues relating to the housing needs of not just our younger generation but the whole of our communities.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate. It could go on until 6.26 pm, but the House will be relieved to hear that I plan to speak for just a couple of minutes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, quite rightly mentioned Lord McKenzie of Luton, who shadowed me when I was on the Front Bench and asked the most difficult questions with the utmost courtesy. We all miss him. She rightly pointed out the illogicality of current ratable values and the HMO loophole, which does need to be looked at.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments, particularly on the need to arrest the drift from long-term lets to short-term lets. There are a number of provisions in the pipeline, and I know she will be keeping a close eye on that.
My noble friend Lord Lilley raised the issue of demand. He was right to do so if one is talking about the housing market, where supply and demand are relevant. Where I think I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best, is that one needs to raise housing in immigration debates as well as raising immigration in housing debates. I know he and I will both pursue that.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, was also right to mention the disenchantment of young people at the current housing position: it is feeding into disenchantment with politics as well as disenchantment with housing. I am grateful, as always, to the noble Lord, Lord Best. I thought the point he made about the public expenditure benefit of home ownership because it reduces the housing benefit costs of older people was a valid one. I hope the Treasury can feed that into its computer when it looks at future expenditure plans. The noble Lord also rightly mentioned the Letwin review, which had a whole lot of worthwhile policies which I think should be pursued.
We welcome my noble friend Lord Attlee to housing debates, with his robust common sense. We learned that the planning system was a conspiracy to keep the rich rich, but I agree with him on what he said about some of the complexities of the planning system.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, who focused on temporary accommodation and its huge cost to local authorities; and on the disruption to the families who are caught up in the moves, including the disruption to education. She was right to mention housing benefit. I think she was the only person in the debate to mention housing benefit, which is highly relevant to any debate on housing. She also reminded us of the good people who are doing heroic work in voluntary organisations on the front line.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jackson. On nutrient neutrality, I was slightly surprised after the defeat in your Lordships’ House that the policy was not overturned in the other place, but my days of party management are now way behind me, so I will not go too much into that.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for endorsing the need for the planning departments to have the resources that they need, the need to have up-to-date plans and, of course, the need to increase supply.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, reminded us of Housing First and what we could do when we really had to and how we got everybody who was sleeping rough off the streets. That was a fantastic response by local authorities and voluntary organisations. She agreed with me on the need to reinstate local authority targets.
Finally, I am very grateful to my patient noble friend the Minister, who provided an important balance to our debate by setting on the record the Government’s many achievements. She dealt, as helpfully as she was able to do within the confines of her brief, with all the issues that were raised.
In conclusion, this debate has been a rich quarry for material for party manifestos. I beg to move.
Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 (Consequential and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 18 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 12 March.