Grand Committee
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Extradition: UK Law and Practice (Extradition Law Committee Report)
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Inglewood
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report of the Extradition Law Committee on Extradition: UK Law and Practice.
Lord Inglewood (Con)
My Lords, extradition—the sending of those accused or convicted of crimes across borders to stand trial or serve sentence in another country—is a contentious, albeit often misunderstood topic which on occasion engenders strong comment on account of the apparent poignancy of the facts and circumstances in a particular case.
In a world which is ever more interdependent, and where travel is ever cheaper and easier, extradition’s salience in the administration of justice is ever greater, even though in this country, at least, it goes back centuries—to 1174 and a treaty, apparently now lost, between England and Scotland.
In the 1990s, the United Kingdom’s arrangements were widely discussed following the so-called Pinochet affair, and those arrangements were superseded by the Extradition Act 2003, which has subsequently been amended. It is these arrangements and their effectiveness into which the House of Lords asked its ad hoc Committee on Extradition Law and practice to inquire in 2014 and to report by the end of March this year.
This is not the only recent parliamentary inquiry. There have been a number of others by committees of the other place and Joint Committees, which have looked into some aspects of the topic. In addition, of particular relevance and help to the committee was the report of the committee chaired by Sir Scott Baker to review the UK’s extradition arrangements, which was published in the autumn of 2011.
The committee comprised Members who had great specialist expertise, and some, like the Chairman, who were new to the topic. Some were lawyers, and others were not. A clear overview emerged that extradition is based on comity and co-operation between states, and that this requires, within certain important limits, the acceptance of the criminal justice systems of others.
The boundaries defining the limits of acceptability are founded on and derived from the European Convention on Human Rights, which is recognised widely across many jurisdictions outside our own. Furthermore, extradition is essentially a judicial, not a diplomatic, process.
The law relating to extradition in the UK is divided into three parts, which have many similarities. Part 1 relates to countries that are members of the European Union; Part 2 to countries with bilateral or multilateral treaties with the United Kingdom, 90 non-European arrest warrant countries which are signatories of the European Convention on Extradition, and Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. The third part comprises other countries with which we have no standing arrangements.
Although many of the characteristics of the arrangements with Part 1 and Part 2 countries are similar, they are not identical. Finally, the committee is clear that extradition is an instrument of last resort, and that every effort should be made by administrative and other measures to limit its use. This of course entails both domestic and diplomatic considerations. Nevertheless, that may not always be possible.
However, I shall begin by considering matters which are shared by Part 1 and Part 2 countries. As already mentioned, human rights, quite properly, are at the heart of our extradition law. While we concluded that the courts, in the handling of human rights considerations, are working effectively in an area of law which is evolving all the time, we were not satisfied that post-extradition services were followed up and monitored as they should be. In particular, in individual cases it often happens that assurances are put in place to enable extradition to take place when otherwise the courts would not allow it. Clearly, it follows that such assurances must be adhered to.
The Home Secretary told us in her evidence that the Government are conducting an inquiry into the matter. We concluded that this report ought to be debated by both Houses, yet in their response the Government merely undertook to put a copy in the Library when it is completed this autumn. When does the Minister anticipate that the report will be concluded and made public, and, given that this may well affect many UK citizens, why are the Government so coy about the matter being debated in Parliament?
In considering possible extradition, there can often be real questions about where, in cases of cross-border crime, it is appropriate to prosecute. We started from a conclusion that the existing arrangements give the Crown Prosecution Service the necessary discretion to enable prosecutors to reach sensible conclusions. However, the Government appear to have dismissed our concerns that an extension of the so-called interests of justice test might better serve the system taken as a whole. Can the Minister spell out the reasoning for that?
We were also concerned that the courts should be especially astute in ensuring that a number of general principles of extradition law and practice are adhered to in this context. Although this is clearly a matter for the courts, I would ask the Government, who have responded in an apparently lukewarm manner, to urge the courts to be especially punctilious in this respect.
The committee also concluded that it was wrong that a person facing extradition be unable to present sensitive information to the courts in order to resist extradition without prejudicing others. We recommended that the Government should therefore amend the 2003 Act to provide for an independent counsel procedure, in order to enable sensitive material to be used in extradition hearings. The Government’s response does not commit to legislating to address this problem but describes the recommendation as,
“helpful in providing a foundation for further consideration of this issue”.
What have the results of this further consideration been?
We also received some evidence about the links between extradition law, family law and trafficking, which we were unable to follow up in the time available and which, in our view, merit serious further consideration. I am very glad that the Government have said they agree, and I would be interested to hear what might be done to take this matter forward.
A frequent concern put to us in evidence was the difficulty in ensuring that appropriately qualified solicitors were available to assist those subject to extradition requests, because bad advice at the outset can harm individuals and waste the court’s time and public money. A ticketing system exists for district judges to ensure that those undertaking extradition casework are appropriately qualified. In a bid to be helpful, the committee recommended that such a system should be introduced for the rota of duty solicitors. It was disappointing that the Government’s response was fairly dismissive of this suggestion, saying that the costs of having such a system would be disproportionate to the concern. Rather, we believe that the committee’s recommendation could actually save money by making court proceedings shorter and more efficient. Was any form of impact assessment carried out before the Government came to their decision? More generally, the committee’s position was that, in any event, where the cost-benefit analysis was thin, the interests of justice should take priority. We heard persuasive evidence of people being badly represented at the early stages of extradition, and we believe that a ticketing system would have helped to prevent that. Can the Minister set out how the Government plan to tackle this problem?
I now turn to the vexed issue of the availability of legal aid. The Baker review asked for a cost-benefit analysis of the effect of removing means testing for legal aid in extradition cases. The committee concluded that the analysis provided to the review was,
“neither a sufficient nor a credible response to the concerns raised”,
and asked the Government to,
“conduct and publish a full and detailed cost-benefit analysis”.
We wanted this analysis to include the potential savings made by having matters resolved by lawyers in the issuing state—and again, within the analysis, the interests of justice ought to take priority. In the mean time, we felt that the Government should do what they can to make the current process more efficient, and noted that practical improvements are under way. In their response, the Government state that they have “no plans” to undertake a “more detailed” analysis and reject,
“any assertion that the means testing of criminal legal aid is fundamentally inconsistent with the timely progress of extradition hearings”.
However, this response has missed the point of the committee’s recommendation. We were not criticising the processing of legal aid applications by the legal aid authority but the earlier, initial hurdles that many requested people faced in even making an application. These could be, for example, a lack of paperwork, poor legal advice or even their having no legal advice at all until the legal aid came through. In passing, I note that the response says that legal aid issues could not justify an automatic three-month delay. The Government may be right, but this was not our assertion; it was the explicit evidence of the district judges, which we believe deserved a better response.
I turn to Part 1 countries and start with the European arrest warrant. This ad hoc committee was somewhat unusual in that we were allowed by the House to publish not one but two reports. With the House’s permission, we were able to produce a short interim report on the European arrest warrant, which was timed to enable the inquiry to contribute to the high-profile debate at the end of last year on whether the UK should seek to opt back into it. The committee concluded that,
“the EAW is a vital tool in fighting crime across the EU”,
but we recognised that it had in the past been overused by some states and, on occasions, misused. It seems to us that the Government are therefore to be congratulated on some of the changes they made to the 2003 Act to address those concerns, and that they should continue to work with the European Commission and other EU member states to ensure that European arrest warrants are an instrument not of first, but of last resort.
As just touched on, one criticism of the extradition system in the case of Part 1 countries is that there has been no sense of proportion in its use, in that it has been deployed in trivial and minor cases. While in the past certain technical reasons have accounted for some of this, a proportionality bar—which has in turn engendered quite a bit of comment—has been introduced into our legislation in respect of Part 1 countries. We agreed that it did not appear appropriate in the case of Part 2 countries. Furthermore, a number of other countries—I single out Poland—have adapted their domestic jurisprudence to constrain the number of requests. We believe that this looks like a step in the right direction, but why in their response do the Government not consider it disproportionate to extradite in conviction cases when less than four months of a sentence is left to run?
I turn to the position of Part 2 countries. As I said, these are the countries designated in the 2003 Act with which the UK has either bilateral or multilateral treaties that are not covered by the EAW, and are signatories to the convention on extradition; they also include Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. The Government are in the second phase of a review of the designation of these countries, the results of which are still pending. We nevertheless felt that it was important that the review should include the status of signatories to the convention, even though we took the realistic view that we are where we are in the real world and that ultimately, it may not be practical to redesignate them. I have to say that I was unclear from the Government’s response what the focus of the current phase of their review might be. Perhaps the Minister could shed a little further light on what their considerations have been so far.
Finally, I want to turn to the extradition arrangements between the United Kingdom and the United States, which have been subject to high-profile criticisms and comment in recent years. We recognise the potential validity of some of the concerns about the US justice system. In particular, there have been difficulties with sometimes lengthy periods of pre-trial detention and in obtaining bail. That said, it is important for everyone to remember that the courts have found that the US justice system complies with the European convention. Despite its high profile, we did not consider the US to be in a category of its own outside that of other Part 2 countries. We concluded that the Government should make representations to the United States authorities with a view to agreeing the treatment of those extradited from the UK, with particular regard to transfer, pre-trial detention and bail, but they should also make similar representations to any other country where there are concerns about conditions. We felt it was important that, were that to be done, such representation should be documented in a memorandum of understanding. The Government appear to have declined to do this, citing the centrality of the role of the courts in determining such assurances and the likely conditions to which requested people will be subject.
Extradition is, of course, a judicial process, but the committee’s intention was to propose some sort of middle way to address the complaints and concerns about treatment which may or may not fall below ECHR thresholds, but still undermines the UK’s extradition arrangements with the United States and vice versa. Self-evidently there is a problem, even if only one of perception. It is a pity that the response has been so unimaginative.
An inevitable feature of an ad hoc committee is that it has no means to follow up its reports, particularly concerning the way in which the world has or has not changed in the light of its recommendations, and whether the Government have honoured their commitments. This sort of follow-up work would be an essential part of the job of any diligent permanent committee doing its job effectively. The Government would be foolish to feel that they were getting off the hook because of that structural issue, or that today’s debate would be the last word.
The Liaison Committee will, I know, return to our report next year—having recently, I understand, conducted its own follow-up exercises on the reports of ad hoc committees from the 2013-14 Session. Equally, the issues covered in our report will not go away, and will certainly remain of high interest to those in your Lordships’ House, and to many outside.
In conclusion, I thank the members of the committee, the clerks, James Whittle and Cathryn Auplish, and our splendid special adviser, Charlotte Powell, for all the work they have contributed. I would also like to put on record our gratitude to all our witnesses, in particular the judges at the extradition court in Marylebone and the Extradition Lawyers Association, for the help they have given us in trying to get a true understanding of how our extradition system actually works. I commend the committee’s report to the Committee, and I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Hart of Chilton (Lab)
My Lords, I had the good fortune to be a member of the Select Committee on Extradition Law, under the extremely able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and with the fine assistance of the clerk and the legal team, who gave us advice and directed our attention to the large number of issues that arose. I have no hesitation in recommending the report to the Committee, because it contains a clear exposition of law, policy and practice, and discusses the important issues that it raises. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said, we were much assisted by the report of Sir Scott Baker, published in 2011.
Subject to necessary protections and safeguards, extradition is in the public interest because, first, it is essential that those accused of crimes should be brought to trial, and those convicted of crimes should serve their sentences in the place of conviction. Secondly, the United Kingdom should honour its treaty obligations. Thirdly, it is in the public interest to avoid this country becoming a safe haven for criminals.
When considering this subject, it is important to remember that extradition is not about establishing guilt or innocence. We looked in detail at the extradition process and the bars to extradition. We talked to people who had undergone that process, and some of their accounts were very moving. We became aware of the fact that although in cases of murder or theft it was easy to see that a person charged should be referred to the state where the offence occurred, it was less obvious in cases of fraud on global markets, or crime involving the internet. In such cases there are often different individuals playing different parts in different countries, or simply someone operating behind a computer in one country, with dire consequences for victims in other states.
In those cases, difficult questions arise as to where the prosecution should take place. We looked at the guidelines for choosing the appropriate forum—taking into account, for example, the location of the witnesses and their ability to give evidence, the location of the accused and his or her connections with the UK, the location of co-defendants, the availability of extradition and the prospect of proceedings being successful—and, of course, the place where most of the criminality, or loss or harm, occurred.
The aspect of our report that gave me most pause for thought lay in the UK’s extradition arrangements with the United States, even though extraditions to the United States account for a very small proportion of the total number of extraditions. A new treaty was concluded with the US in 2003 but not ratified by its Senate until April 2007 after a visit from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland.
It has been alleged for some time that the arrangements between the United States and the United Kingdom are unbalanced, but in fact 14 requests from the United States have been refused in this country, whereas in the same period the United States has rejected none of ours. There was much argument about the evidence needed to support extradition to the United States and vice versa—probable cause and reasonable suspicion were the two terms under the microscope. We concluded that although the terms were different, functionally they were the same. What was not the same, however, were certain aspects of the United States justice system which seemed to us unduly harsh—not least those being extradited being shackled in chains on the plane on their outbound journey.
We heard much about the United States plea bargaining system. While it is true that a plea of guilty in our system can achieve a sentence discount, in the United States plea bargaining has become notorious, with some alleging that 90% to 95% of state and federal court cases were resolved through plea bargaining, which has led some to conclude that as a result many people in prison were in fact innocent.
A number of witnesses pointed out that plea bargaining placed a great power in the hands of the prosecutor—I shall come back to that in a moment. The evidence we heard emphasised the fact that extradition often removes individuals to places far from home, without support, facing an alien justice system. Who would not, in those circumstances, it was asked, accept a plea bargain however innocent they felt? The certainty was to be much preferred to the uncertainty of a much longer sentence in a foreign jail. As for human rights, this House, in its judicial capacity, ruled that only in a wholly extreme case would plea bargaining be regarded as an absolute abuse of process. The United States Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights also declined to intervene on that basis.
Another aspect for concern was the United States courts’ tendency to refuse bail to those who had fought extradition. In such cases, such conduct—when combined with the fact that an extraditee was not a United States citizen and had no property or family ties in the community—was thus regarded as a flight risk, and bail was refused. Similarly, it was said that some United States prison conditions were so appalling that extradition to the US was extremely harsh. The conditions in some supermax prisons were dreadful. While British prisons are not exactly five star hotels, the lengthy wait for trial in a supermax prison in the United States—particularly for those who have been assessed in the United Kingdom as “low risk” for violence or absconding—seems unduly harsh. As with plea bargaining, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has not found US prison conditions to be in breach of human rights.
Unlike our own prosecuting service, many US prosecutors are drawn from the law engines of the top law firms in Washington and New York, having given up a few years of their career to gain experience and expertise in the US prosecution service before resuming their careers in private practice. They are determined to succeed and take a broad and enthusiastic view of their jurisdiction. Unlike our prosecutors, who rely on police investigation, US prosecutors have investigatory powers and therefore drive the prosecution from its inception.
As the chairman has said, notwithstanding these reservations, we concluded on balance in our report that the United States was not a special case and that its processes and interpretation of jurisdiction were not inappropriate. While the United States is clearly more active in prosecuting cross-border crimes than many others, we did not find that its interpretation of its jurisdiction was excessive. Nevertheless, we did make a recommendation, which Lord Inglewood has referred to, that the UK Government should make representations to the US with particular regard to the transfer of prisoners—that is, the transfer in chains—pre-trial detention and bail for those extradited.
Our recommendation has been rejected and, like Lord Inglewood, I would like the Minister to explain to the House, on the record, the reasons for rejecting our suggestions, because they seem to me extremely practical and sensible and would relieve some of the harshness of the conditions in which extraditees find themselves.
Baroness Wilcox (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Inglewood for his masterly chairmanship of the ad hoc Select Committee on Extradition Law, on which I have been privileged to serve. I also take this opportunity to thank the clerks and advisers for their patient answers to the many questions I seem to have asked in the past couple of days.
If I may say so, my noble friend’s speech was excellent and was so wide-ranging that I only really need to talk briefly to two of the recommendations. As we have heard, our committee wants UK officials to gain assurances from their American counterparts about the transfer, pre-trial detention and bail of people facing extradition to the United States. Some individuals assessed in the UK as presenting a low risk of either violence or absconding are nevertheless restrained during flights or detained in high-security facilities. We have heard more from Lord Hart of Chilton on this issue. The Government’s response shows some willingness to seek assurances, but can the Minister say more? I should like to think that issues besides individual health could be discussed in this area.
Secondly, I was fortunate during the committee’s investigations to sit in on two extradition cases at Westminster magistrates’ court. One involved a young Polish fellow who was assisted in court only by a much-needed interpreter. In the other case, however, the defendant had legal help, and the difference was noticeable in terms of clarity for both judge and defendant. That took me back, quite a long way—to 1996-97, when I participated in a review of the civil court division of the Court of Appeal, led by Sir Geoffrey Bowman, and which included the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, whom I see is in his place here today, which is very pleasing. He was Master of the Rolls at the time. That review was prompted by an increasing number of lay litigants in person—some 25% of the cases back then. We witnessed many lay litigants, and judges, struggling through mountains of disordered papers with looks of confusion. The individual stress and the time wasted was terrible, and I remain glad that our recommendations—some, at least—helped to alleviate both.
Since then, I have discovered something called the personal support unit. What a difference it is now making in the civil courts. Usually under the guidance of a retired lawyer, trained volunteers, at no charge, assist people who are facing civil court proceedings without legal representation. I wish a PSU or an equivalent could be involved in extradition cases such as the ones I have observed.
More substantially, there is an overwhelming case for the Government to do further detailed work on the costs and benefits of the effect of removing means testing for legal aid in extradition cases. Remember that, in most extradition cases, requested people have yet to be convicted of any crime. Innocent until proven guilty—that principle is one we really must cherish and protect, and it is a suitable point on which to conclude.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, it is good to follow the noble Baroness, who is in fine form. I very much agree with what our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has said in his shrewd summation, so my remarks will be brief. I quote from an early page in the report:
“The suggestion for this inquiry came in a letter to the Liaison Committee from Baroness Garden of Frognal in which she said, ‘the question of extradition remains as high up on the political agenda as ever’”.
During our proceedings, so well marshalled by our clerks and advisers, I much appreciated the wise counsel of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, but perhaps the merits of our committee system are best illuminated by the qualities of our witnesses. Sir Scott Baker was persuasive. Then there was the professionalism of Senior District Judge Howard Riddle, the chief magistrate at Westminster magistrates’ court, and the right honourable Theresa May, our Home Secretary, whose straight bat was worthy of a place in a test match team. There was also Jacob Rees-Mogg, MP, with his whimsical elegance and sincerity, and a squadron of QCs—skilled presenters and experienced, insightful and confident advocates.
We also heard from our fellow citizens who had been extradited, who brought to our proceedings the still-remaining horror, shock and fear of the foreign courtroom. They gave us mostly no-nonsense, authentic accounts of what it was like to face the formality and the might of foreign law, with their liberty at stake. It could be said that they brought into our proceedings the very smell of remembered fear. It was therefore only right for our committee to consider seriously at length what our state decides about a citizen’s liberty in our name.
I found the visit to the Marylebone magistrates’ court most helpful. Judge Riddle and his colleagues were hospitable and informative. Their courts are unique, and their professionalism impressive. Perhaps these little-known courts truly reflect the British approach to law—an approach much to Britain’s credit. At Marylebone one sat alongside the district judge and observed everything that went on—the judge’s meticulous note-taking, her courteous interventions on the advocates below her, and her impartiality. The advocates were truly representing worried plaintiffs, and one saw the centrality of the interpreter; that was clearly very important. The system acknowledged the humanity of the situation, and there was, self-evidently, fairness. It seemed that each court required quite a number of employees to make it work, and here extradition was decided. To be present was to experience a learning curve that was helpful to the committee’s proceedings, so I thank the district judge who tolerated me in her court.
I referred to witnesses, and the United States system looms large in our report. So it should. Paragraph 443 refers to pre-trial conditions being perceived as harsh—excessively harsh. Paragraph 444 seeks,
“representations to the US authorities to agree the treatment of those extradited from the UK”.
I support that wholeheartedly.
Witness David Bermingham’s lengthy evidence was riveting and moving when one knew his supportive parents were present in our committee. As one of the NatWest Three, he brought authenticity to the committee. Extradition concerns a citizen’s liberty—in this instance, a highly educated, worldly-wise, sophisticated and imaginative banker told it as it really is from his point of view. When the might of American law bears down on one, it can be terrifying. Because of costs, Mr Bermingham eventually lodged in the home of his American lawyer. Matters dragged on and on and the financially hard-pressed NatWest Three then had to meet their wives who had crossed the Atlantic for decisive family talks. The upshot was plea bargaining, jail and fines. Whatever the merits of the case—I am not qualified to judge—David Bermingham’s evidence vividly justified the committee’s proceedings, as did the other representative witnesses.
The NatWest Three were British citizens surrendered to foreign law—to highly organised, most powerful, overwhelming law. One is not an advocate for the NatWest Three, but one is a total supporter of our committee’s stance on United Kingdom-United States extradition.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
Like others, I start by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for chairing our committee with such assiduity, sagacity and unfailing good humour, and to our wonderful clerk, James Whittle, and those who assisted him, not least our legal adviser Charlotte Powell. They all played essential roles in enabling us to complete this very complex inquiry in the required time, producing, as I believe, a sound and convincing report.
I came to this inquiry having been involved in extradition law over a considerable number of years, largely as an appellate judge. Indeed, I declared an interest as such in the report. Having observed this both as a judge and now on this committee, I can genuinely say that between them, Parliament and the judiciary have achieved what is substantially a fair and appropriate balance between, on the one hand, the public interest in extradition, and on the other the rights of those for whom extradition is sought, including not being unreasonably subjected to the trauma of forcible removal for trial abroad.
The public interest in extradition is, as the courts have often been at pains to explain, constant and weighty. Those accused of crime should ordinarily be brought to trial. The UK should honour its treaty obligation. In an ever contracting world it is ever more important to combat cross-border crime and fugitives. There should be no safe havens. Extradition is not the process for determining guilt or innocence, but only whether the suspect should be brought to trial. Therefore, the old adage, “Better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent person be convicted”, simply has no application in this context.
One must acknowledge, however, that this interest can on occasion, if only rarely, be outweighed by certain very real concerns on behalf of the suspect. The possible defences—bars to extradition—are set out in our report at paragraph 19, but they above all revolve around human rights concerns as defined in the European Convention on Human Rights. Of course, Part 2 countries are not subject to the convention, but the convention it is that provides the touchstones by which our domestic courts decide on the propriety of extradition, both to Part 1 and Part 2 countries.
Before turning to two particular matters on which I shall touch in a little more detail, I want first to suggest what seem to me certain basic truths about the operation of extradition which I think the wider public sometimes overlook. I have already mentioned one: that extradition is not the trial process but merely the mechanism for ensuring that those accused of crimes stand trial, the closest analogy being perhaps domestic pre-trial custody. An accused here may forcibly be detained in prison, even though untried and still therefore presumed innocent. Secondly, if we in the United Kingdom refuse to extradite accused persons to, say, Russia or Turkey—as indeed we do, since we cannot be satisfied that they will be treated humanely on being returned—two consequences have to be recognised. First, we will thereby be providing a sanctuary for the criminals of those countries who manage to flee here. Secondly, those countries may well in turn reciprocate by refusing our requests to them to extradite, very possibly, UK nationals back here.
Extradition is based on mutual trust and respect, and extradition proceedings must therefore accommodate legal and cultural differences between all sorts of different legal systems. Naturally, we think that our own criminal justice system is best, but we cannot insist on all other countries following the same procedures. Let us take the USA’s practice of plea bargaining. We may think that it is carried to such lengths as to put defendants under too great a pressure to plead guilty even if they regard themselves as innocent. But we have to recognise this: if on that basis we held that the practice of plea bargaining constitutes an abuse of process, we would have to refuse to extradite not only our own citizens to the United States but any United States citizens who were here, however guilty. As we point out at paragraph 442 of the report,
“the UK would speedily become a safe haven for all those seeking impunity for crimes in or against the US”.
That brings me to the first of the two matters I want to touch on a little more particularly: our extradition relationship with the United States, which others have already addressed. I should perhaps mention at once that I gave the sole judgment in the appeal committee in this House in 2008 in the case of McKinnon, which we summarise at pages 132 to 135 of our report. It is perhaps among the more high-profile of the many vexed cases involving the extradition of UK nationals to the USA for offences which, although of extraterritorial effect and therefore triable on an extraterritorial basis, were substantially committed in the UK. There was huge public misconception about that case.
First, it was suggested that all Mr McKinnon was doing on his attic computer in London was searching for UFOs. However, his confession to disrupting American security systems was on the basis that he considered that the US Government were sponsoring terrorism. Secondly, it was claimed that he faced a sentence of decades in prison—50 or 60 years—if he pleaded not guilty but was convicted, whereas in fact the indications given to him were that he could expect a sentence of three to four years on a guilty plea, or eight to 10 if he fought and lost the case.
Thirdly, as is of course well known, the Secretary of State ultimately decided not to extradite him because by then he had been diagnosed with Asperger’s. However, that diagnosis came after the appeal hearing before us, during which no question had arisen at all about his health. In 2013 the law was changed to pass the responsibility for consideration of such late human rights concerns from the Home Secretary to the courts, and our committee, rightly, fully endorsed and supported that change. Surely, extradition should be kept out of the political arena and left entirely as a judicial process.
The overall conclusion we came to is that there is no basic imbalance or unfairness in the operation of the UK-US extradition treaty. We agreed entirely with the Sir Scott Baker review in that regard. However, as others have mentioned, we concluded that those extradited to the US, even if at low risk of being violent or absconding, may on occasion be too harshly treated—for example, being unnecessarily handcuffed or even chained in flight or detained in high-security conditions because, as non-US citizens, they can offer no suitable bail address.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has already addressed the question of securing from the authorities some suitable memorandum of understanding to deal with these concerns. I add only the following, which brings me to the final point I want to touch on: Article 8 of the convention. If indeed it is impossible to secure any suitable memorandum of understanding or undertaking from the United States, or from any other relevant state whose processes give rise to the same concerns about such pre-trial treatment, that could well affect the court’s view and tip the balance in a particular case against extradition.
Article 8 has assumed—the witnesses were very clear about this—increasing importance as a possible bar to extradition, in particular since the decision of the Supreme Court in HH and linked cases. In 2012 my noble and learned friend—then Lord Chief Justice—Lord Judge was party to that case; indeed, I think it was my very last case in that court. It is still rare for Article 8 to successfully be invoked in such cases. However, it enables the court to look at a case in the round and decide whether the gravity of the alleged offending and the overall interests of honouring extradition agreements and combating cross-border crime truly justify the huge disruption of life sometimes involved in a person’s extradition. Although Parliament has now introduced into our law certain specific provisions about forum and proportionality and so forth, very generally those same considerations will also come into play in determining an Article 8 claim.
Our report deals with these matters at various places, but I draw particular attention to paragraphs 172 and 173. Unlike some countries, the UK extradites its own nationals. However, there may well be different considerations in play in two different cases: for example, that of a foreign national who has committed an offence in his home country and then fled to the United Kingdom, and whose extradition is sought from here back home; and, on the other hand, that of a UK national who has never left this country but whose extradition is now sought for trial on an extraterritorial basis, his crime having impacted abroad. In the former case, the suspect’s private and family life is abroad anyway and will not seriously be interfered with by extradition. But as the noble Lord, Lord Hart, has pointed out, the UK national, if extradited, will be separated from his home, family, friends and support systems. He will be sent abroad where he may have no ties or support at all, very possibly with no bail address, and without any understanding of that country’s legal system and customs, and perhaps even their language. There is surely some considerable difference between those cases. Paragraph 173 of our report suggests that in the latter case the court should be “particularly astute” in ensuring that extradition really is the appropriate course and that,
“the forum bar has been fully explored … all relevant Article 8 arguments have been fully evaluated to ensure that extradition is not disproportionate”,
and—this reverts to the point about the USA—
“consideration has been given to the possibility of obtaining assurances as to … the prospects of pre-trial bail; and … the transfer back to the UK of at least part of any eventual sentences”.
The report covers a host of issues, most of which one could wax lyrically on—or not, as the case may be—but I propose to say no more. I believe that the report should be allowed to speak for itself, and I respectfully commend it to the Committee.
Lord Rowlands (Lab)
My Lords, I shall confine my observations to the issues arising in the report connected to the European arrest warrant. I do so for perhaps the curious reason that the arrest warrant seems to have been a part of my life for the best part of five years, not just one. Prior to serving on this committee, I served on the European Sub-Committee E for four years, where the issue of scrutiny of European arrest warrants was a regular part of my practice, although I have not yet been served with one.
The second feature of the evidence that we received, which I have heard in previous scrutiny cases, is that despite the many pungent criticisms that have been made of the European arrest warrant and the examples of manifest injustice that have occurred, nevertheless the overwhelming opinion of witness after witness was that we should stay within the European arrest warrant system. It was therefore with very considerable relief that we heard that the coalition Government had eventually agreed to do so. We came to the same conclusions in both our interim and substantive reports. The evidence, for example, covered Operation Captura, under which some 61 criminals have been brought back to justice. These were not some romantic robber barons: they included one of the most serious paedophile cases, which I think the Home Secretary invoked when defending the Government’s decision to rejoin the European arrest warrant.
Having said that, we should not be unaware of or deny the valid criticisms of the system. In some cases, there have been clear examples—such as Mr Symeou and Mr Graham Mitchell—of manifest injustice. I refer in particular to Mr Mitchell because he gave us very moving evidence of his nightmarish experience under the process.
Mr Mitchell and a friend were on holiday in the Algarve in May 1994, when he was accused of attempted murder. He was held in pre-trial detention for a year. At the trial he and the other person charged were found not guilty and released. Then, some two years later, the Portuguese supreme court quashed Mr Mitchell’s acquittal, although he was not at all aware of that, and proceeded somewhat later to seek a European arrest warrant. The warrant was served on Mr Mitchell, and he was arrested and held for proceedings at the Westminster magistrates’ court. However, in May 2012 the Portuguese authorities—having traumatised a citizen in the most appalling manner—withdrew the request.
A question immediately arises, which I would like to put to the Minister. For all the various changes that we have made and are making—the so-called soft measures and the safeguards—are we certain that it is now highly unlikely that a British citizen will ever encounter the kind of experience that Mr Mitchell and Mr Symeou had? Are we as certain as we can be that the sort of manifest injustices that have arisen are now highly unlikely to occur? I will be grateful if the Minister, when he replies, addresses that question. That is what many citizens will be saying that we want from the changes and amendments that have been made—to ensure that such cases will not be repeated.
The second issue surrounding the European arrest warrant is that of proportionality, and the principle that such a warrant should be a last resort, not a first resort. In this respect the committee endorsed the Government’s legislation on proportionality, but we received quite a lot of evidence doubting its efficacy. Inevitably, the particular problems of Poland were mentioned, and both the committee and the Government have emphasised the response and the changes that the Polish authorities are now endeavouring to make to their arrangements. An extraordinary number of cases originated from Poland: 90% of the cases in Scotland were Polish cases. That should now be reduced, and a degree of proportionality should be properly introduced.
The Government claim that its proportionality bar and other things are working, and that there is a reduction. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister would update us on the figures in table 3, on page 40 of the report, to include the figures for 2014-2015. Let us see whether the trend in such cases, particularly those involving Poland, is at least going in the right direction.
I noticed with some interest and satisfaction that in their response the Government drew to our attention the fact that the National Crime Agency has refused to certify a total of 196 European arrest warrants on grounds of proportionality and other discretionary grounds. That is to be welcomed. They also claim that they are pushing for the principle of last resort to be the basis of the revision of the Commission’s handbook —a handbook of guidance and advice for member states. How far has the Minister got, and how successful has he been, in pursuing the Government’s efforts to ensure that proportionality and the principle of last resort will be central to the revised Commission handbook? As the Government made the case about the importance of revising the handbook in their response, will he explain where we stand on that issue?
I draw attention to one other recommendation that we made on the European arrest warrant. Recommendation 16, in paragraph 315, says,
“the Government and the European Commission should work to establish further guidelines on the execution of EAWs to ensure that they are conducted in the least hostile manner possible”.
I cannot see a proper reply or response to that recommendation in the Government’s response, so I ask the Minister whether they have followed it up.
I recall that one of the reasons why that recommendation was made was the evidence of a Polish gentleman, Mr Wolkowicz, who suffered the most intolerable indignities being extradited in a wheelchair, rolling around in a Second World War Polish plane. Indeed, it caught fire, but fortunately it was on the ground. That sort of thing, as well as the experiences of those who have been extradited to the United States, suggest that we should at least try to execute the warrants in a more a sensible, civilised way than appears to have been done in some cases.
It has been a pleasure to serve on the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I have to tell the Minister ever so gently that our considered and carefully argued report deserved a rather better response than the one that we received. The curious self-congratulatory tone of the Government’s response does not do justice to our first-class report.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, like other members of the committee, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for his chairmanship. He jollied us along very well on a rather complicated subject, and we were expertly served by our clerks and advisers. As a lay person, surrounded as I was by the great and the good who had served on the Bench and as law officers in government, I found it quite daunting to come along and address some of these very difficult issues. That was brought home to me particularly when some of us went to Westminster Magistrates’ Court to see for ourselves exactly what was happening at the sharp end. On the morning I was there, a hapless accused was brought before the Bench and had charges relayed to him through an interpreter. The judge then had to explain to that person who I happened to be—I am sure this was happening in other courts as we were there. Whatever happened in the interpretation, it seemed from the expression on the face of the hapless accused that he had concluded that the hanging judge, Judge Jeffreys, had appeared and that things were not looking as good for him as he thought.
We also saw how things could be very inefficient, when someone was brought from a prison in the east of England all the way to the magistrates’ court. Attempts were made to head them off because, for some reason or other, the case could not go ahead, so that individual and the officers concerned wasted probably half a day or more going in circles. We saw at first hand what was happening, and I think that the committee owes a debt of gratitude to all those in the court for opening up, letting us in and explaining the day-to-day practicalities of what they were confronted with.
It is interesting that many previous speakers have concentrated on a couple of issues—by sheer coincidence, we all seem to have gravitated towards similar issues—such as the efficiency of the system, and I would like the Minister to address the following point. I am very disappointed that the Government reject the idea of the cost-benefit analysis being revisited in regard to legal aid. We all know that you cannot have open-ended legal aid; it is just financially impossible. But we were given evidence about—and saw with our own eyes—a sort of mandatory or routine three-month delay, which is not acceptable for a variety of reasons. I can see no reason why, given that the committee shares the objective of reducing costs as much as anybody else—you are trying to balance cost against justice and all the other issues—and given the inevitable, built-in delay to the system, the Government are not prepared to revisit the cost-benefit analysis. I just do not understand why that is the case. Clearly, the delay in itself is a source of cost. We all know that adjournments of cases are a source of cost and that, of course, delay dilutes justice.
The people coming before the court at that time are not being charged with offences but are there purely to respond to a warrant or a demand from another country. Therefore, the decisions of the court are not about guilt or innocence; they are about whether or not there is a case to answer. They are not dealing with the guilt or innocence of the individual. In those circumstances, I would have thought it prudent for the Government to revisit that decision. We all share the view that we should try, wherever possible, to be as efficient and as cost conscious as we can in regard to the administration of justice.
A number of Members of the Committee have highlighted the American system. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, and others mentioned examples of witnesses who explained to us how they had been dealt with by the American system. We concluded that there is absolutely no reason why people should not be extradited to the United States of America, but of course public opinion has been coloured by lurid headlines in the Daily Mail, and other sorts of things. When we drilled down into it, we were unable to sustain those arguments. However, there are issues of grave concern. Setting aside the fact that individuals who came before us had plea bargained and effectively accepted guilt for their offences, the fact is that if you oppose your extradition, you are deemed to be a flight risk when you get there. You have to have an address before you can even work to sustain yourself, and in many cases that is not possible.
People go into a justice system which is a lottery. People can be moved vast distances within the United States to a dramatically different quality of prison, some of which we would regard as perfectly acceptable while others could be high-security prisons with very tough regimes. They could be thousands of miles from family and friends or any kind of support network. In those circumstances, it is not unreasonable to ask whether the Minister, on behalf of the Government, would keep that particular aspect of the relationship and extradition process between the United Kingdom and the United States under review, simply because of the vast distances involved, the discrepancy in the levels of treatment and so on. That should all be subject to continuous review.
There is pressure on people. In some states, 99% of the cases are plea bargained, and very few cases result in acquittals. Clearly, plea bargaining whittles cases out and reduces the potential for them to go forward. I understand the rationale for that, but given the balance of probabilities people may well be, and undoubtedly are, encouraged to plea bargain by their legal representatives, who say, “Look, it’s better to do a deal than simply sit here for years”. There is a pressure that may not be there in other countries and cases.
The other thing that struck me was the Polish situation. I believe it is improving, but people were being extradited for offences which seemed very trivial to me as a lay person. I understand that that is correcting itself, and maybe the Minister could give us some guidance and an indication as to how that situation is improving. A large number of cases coming before the courts were Polish ones, some of which I thought were remarkably trivial under the circumstances. Perhaps the Minister can update us on that.
Overall, there is no doubt that we want justice to be served, and it has to be as cost efficient as possible. We also know that taking an individual from their country and sending them to another, sometimes thousands of miles away, is a huge decision. Equally, we do not want to have a haven for wrongdoers, and there is therefore a balance to be struck. The committee felt that the underlying guidance would be the European convention and its application to each particular case, and that using that as a fundamental guideline would be the best way forward. I am sure the Minister would accept that on behalf of the Government.
We have tried to achieve a balance which serves justice but also protects the individual. I hope that perhaps the Government will review once again some of the rejections of our proposals contained in the response, some of which I found somewhat disappointing. The committee was not there simply to add cost or add complication—indeed, we believed the very opposite. I hope that we will be able to continue to follow through in this Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said in his remarks, and not just let the matter rest with this debate.
Lord James of Blackheath (Con)
My Lords, I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap; I know that I have only four minutes, so I will go rather quickly. Several issues are not addressed by the final conclusions of this committee, which carry risks for people in the future, and I would not want them to go down the same path and experience what I have suffered. This is my story.
On 31 December 2000 I completed the process for the recovery and survival of Lloyd’s of London, the insurance market. I had been chairman of the audit committee of Lloyd’s of London for eight years and chairman of the special committee created to rescue Lloyd’s, the Equitas committee. As such I signed all the audit certificates for Lloyd’s of London for the whole of those eight years. When we filed it, it depended on the collection of $3 billion from the American investors still to be achieved. We could not start that process until we had clearance in England. We got the clearance of the British courts on 31 December, and we were in business. Immediately, I was served with a writ by the Americans claiming that I had signed a false audit certificate for Lloyd’s of London, on the grounds that this should have been a Chapter 11 case —which of course does not exist in British law—that they were going to proceed against me, and that this, on proof, would involve me serving a 24-year sentence in the state pen. At the age of 63 that could have been difficult.
I started to look for help and assistance from the British Government and legal sources on this, and was told, “You can’t have any. It’s a civil action and we don’t do it—civil actions can’t be subject to extradition, they’re wasting their time, they can’t extradite you on this case, and you haven’t got any claim on us for support”. So I had to go back to the drawing board on this with the Americans to decide what to do. We finally agreed that we would have neutral ground—a meeting in Toronto to decide what to do, where I could not be arrested. So we went to Toronto, at my expense, and had a meeting on this. Eventually they told me that they would drop the charge of failing to go into Chapter 11 on the grounds that that was a civil case and there was no Chapter 11 in Britain, but that they would not drop the charge of signing a false audit certificate and would have a trial on that point alone. Then they said, “Look, we know you’re not going to stand trial here because we’ve come over here and we’ve given you safe conduct on the basis that you’ll come here for this. We’ll try you in London”. I said, “You’re an American Government—you can’t try me in London!”. “Yes, we can”, they said. “We’ll try you in the American Embassy in Grosvenor Square”. Indeed they did. They set me up with a trial in Grosvenor Square, and I seriously contest the legality of a British citizen being tried in Grosvenor Square by an American Government on any charge at all. That should be precluded in any circumstances.
The second thing was that we went on trial; it finally took place in May 2001. They set up a proper court, making the room look like a court, with the eagle and the American flag, and they got teams of lawyers and judges over, and I stood trial for nine days, during which I was the only witness, and I never came out of the witness box for nine whole days. At the end of that time, thank God, the judge decided that of course I had not signed a false audit certificate, because I had legitimately relied on Section 8(3)(c) of the Insolvency Act 1986, and that Lloyd’s of London was governed by British and not American law. I was not only clear of the prison sentence but clear to go and get my $3 billion from the American citizens, which I did.
Three points of principle are covered here. First, there must be no question of any extradition in a civil action. The action was brought by the American investors, not by the American department that investigates fraud, which should completely preclude any such proceedings. Secondly, no Brit should be tried, as an alternative to extradition, in a British kangaroo court set up in the American embassy, however good the sandwiches they serve. Thirdly, you simply cannot allow American citizens to initiate action which privately leads to extradition proceedings.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and his distinguished committee and congratulating them on their excellent report. I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. All those noble Lords who were members of the committee undoubtedly had a lot to contribute, and we have heard from many of them today. I hope they will forgive me if I say this about the presence on the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who has had the distinction of having heard and decided a number of the most important extradition cases over recent years. That seems to me a particularly telling point. The House of Lords has come in for much criticism recently, some of it no doubt justified, but in what other Parliament would it be possible for a committee to have the benefit of the expertise on the subject in question of a recently retired Supreme Court judge? It is a good example of how we can sometimes do better than people think.
Talking of legal luminaries, I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord will be replying for the Government. Having listened to this debate as I have, and read the Government’s response to the report, even he will have his work cut out to justify the negative tone—I am being polite there—of that government response. However, I do not want to be negative. There is a widespread and welcome consensus that,
“there is no systemic problem with the UK’s extradition regime”.
Systemic may be a rather important word in that sentence. That is what the committee found and what has been the spirit of all the contributions, more or less, today. The Labour Government, who were in power when the Extradition Act was passed in 2003, should get some credit, as should the present Government for changes that they have introduced. In such an important and sensitive area of law as extradition, there should be, if possible, broad agreement. I hope it may long continue. However, just in case all this sounds a little cosy and even a little self-satisfied, it is important to look at some of the recommendations made by the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood.
The conclusion in paragraph 90 of the report is that,
“it is questionable, in our view, whether the UK can be as certain as it should be that it is meeting its human rights obligations”,
because of the “flawed” nature of the arrangements in place for monitoring assurances. The committee argued for a clear government response on that, which leads to my first question to the Minister. Can he can tell the Committee today when the review of the monitoring of assurances will be completed? The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, himself asked that question earlier today. What appears to be autumn in the Government’s response to that request can often turn out to the rest of us to be deepest winter in government-speak, and even, occasionally, when the first daffodils appear. It would be helpful to know when the review will be completed.
The next point I want to raise briefly is recommendation 8 at paragraph 199 and the relationship between extradition law and proceedings in family court child abduction cases and people-trafficking law. The committee asked the Government to commission a review, to which the Government said they would give further consideration. Have they done so, and if so, what are their conclusions?
It is on the disagreement about means-tested legal aid and the matter of legal advice that I want to comment in a little more detail. Chapter 6 of the report deals with legal advice, legal aid and expert evidence from paragraph 200 onwards. On legal advice, the committee was concerned, rightly, that the duty solicitor rota is not a satisfactory scheme. Unlike other duty schemes, there are no assessments, qualifications or mandatory training, which is particularly important. This is perhaps particularly unfortunate in this field of law, as anyone glancing at the report will understand that the first appearance can be so important in deciding which way the case will go—for example, how long it will take and how much it will cost. Those are considerations such that if you get it right on first hearing it can save everybody—for want of a better phrase—a great deal of agony later on.
Recommendation 9 was for a ticketing system so that proper expertise is there from the “earliest point”. Alas, the Legal Aid Agency said no through its witness,
“simply because of an issue of cost”.
The Government’s response puts it perhaps rather more elegantly, but it comes to the same thing. They state:
“The Legal Aid Agency … does not believe that the cost of introducing an accreditation scheme for extradition work is proportionate to the level of concerns reported to the Committee. Given that no accreditation scheme currently exists for extradition, costs would be incurred in the development of a scheme and defence solicitors would have to pay for training and examination”.
Will the Minister think again on that matter? Expert advice and representation from the start invariably has the advantage of not just being in the interests of justice but saves costs down the line. This is especially true in extradition cases.
As to whether requested people should be means- tested before being granted legal aid, there is a huge imbalance in opinion. Sir Scott Baker, in his review, leading lawyers in the field who gave evidence to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood’s committee, the Office of the Chief Magistrate, and, of course, the committee itself in its recommendations, support a system that is not means-tested. Only Her Majesty’s Government oppose it in unambiguous—I think that that is being polite—terms; they really dismiss the idea. They of course deny any link between means-testing and all that it involves, and delays to the extradition process.
However, in a powerful passage in the report—I refer to paragraphs 216 and 217 on pages 62 and 63—the case is made out by the committee for no means-testing for automatic legal aid. It can just take too long for an award to be made—I do not think that one should hide away from that fact. An award is not often made straightaway and it is extremely difficult for many people who come before the court in extradition matters to be able to fill in the documentary requirement satisfactorily. There is also the argument about cost, as has been referred to, and the Government’s refusal to have a proper cost/benefit analysis, which, reading between the lines, it is clear the committee felt very strongly about.
Recommendation 10 of the committee is strongly worded. It states:
“The Government should conduct and publish a full and detailed cost-benefit analysis. In our view, unless a cost-benefit analysis very clearly favours retaining means testing, the interests of justice should take priority”.
That is a powerful argument and I look forward to the Minister’s response to it.
I wish that I could say that I am surprised by the Government’s written response, but I am not. Having closely—perhaps too closely for my own good—followed the Government’s approach to legal aid for five-and-a-half years or so, they have in my view nearly always got it wrong, and this is another instance of that. Can the Minister, who has a reputation for being a most persuasive advocate, go back to the department and ask it to think again about that matter?
I do not want to end on a discordant note. Extradition law, with its particular difficulties and its great human sensitivities, is in one way a very good mark of a country’s whole approach to the rule of law and the principles of access to justice—I hope that we can all agree on that. It is the committee’s view, and it is a view that I am happy to share, that on balance the United Kingdom does this pretty well. However, it would be good to see the further improvements that the committee recommends. The Committee looks forward to hearing from the Minister.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to be here to speak for the Government on the matter of extradition, in which I know the House has taken a close interest over recent years. I will seek to reply to all the points made during what has been an illuminating debate.
I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Inglewood for leading this debate and extend my thanks to the Select Committee members for their thorough analysis of our extradition law and practice.
Of course, this is not the first time that our extradition laws and practices have been reviewed. In recent years, we have seen the independent Baker review and reports from the Home Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, among others. The Government always read these reports with great interest.
The Extradition Law Committee’s report was particularly timely, with the newer provisions inserted into the Extradition Act 2003 in the last Parliament—such as the forum and proportionality bars—having begun to operate only quite recently. The committee’s review and scrutiny of those reforms have been of help to the Government, and we are grateful for that.
Like the committee, the Government believe that the changes made in recent years to UK extradition law mean that the process now operates more fairly and in a way in which the rights of persons are effectively balanced against the interests of justice. It was under the present Home Secretary that a number of important reforms to the system were made: for example, the introduction of the forum bar and the removal of the Secretary of State’s consideration of human rights issues in favour of that of the courts. Furthermore, the reforms of the European arrest warrant go some way, I believe, to meeting criticisms which have been made of its operation in the past. I will attempt to look at each of the points which have been raised, Should I omit any, I undertake to write to your Lordships on those matters.
I begin by mentioning, by way of background, some very basic statistics. We should remember that, in the context of extradition, we are dealing not just with persons liable to trial but with persons who have already been convicted of criminal offences. In the period between 2009 and 2014, for which figures are available, the United Kingdom received in excess of 29,000 requests for arrest warrants. Of those, fewer than 5% pertained to British nationals. So far as Part 2 requests are concerned—that is, those that fall outwith the European arrest warrant system—there were, in the same period, only 336 requests. That is a tiny proportion of the total. The United States has been repeatedly referred to, and I have just noticed that in the same period, 82 requests were received from the United States and 67 people were surrendered in consequence of those requests. On the other hand, as has already been noted, the United States responded to each and every extradition request which was submitted to it by the United Kingdom. That is an attempt to put the matter into context.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood raised a series of issues—such as assurances, sensitive information being dealt with by counsel, qualified solicitors and legal aid—all of which, to a greater or lesser extent, were touched upon by other noble Lords. I will take some of these matters in turn.
The matter of legal aid was raised by a number of your Lordships. The position of the Government remains as stated in their response to the report. It is considered inappropriate for extradition cases to form an exception to the normal provisions with regard to means testing for legal aid. There is no justification for such a position to be adopted, in our view. In the past year, 1,586 persons were the subject of a European arrest warrant, of whom just in excess of 1,000 made an application for legal aid. In 90% of those cases where legal aid was applied for, the completed application for extradition proceedings to be legally aided was processed within two working days. There are exceptions, and there may be cases where someone refused legal aid seeks a review and further documentary evidence is requested with regard to their means, which can be time consuming. But we are talking about a tiny proportion of a small number of cases. That does not, on the face of it, account for any three-month delays in the extradition process.
Connected to legal aid is the requirement for expert advice to be available to persons who are going to be the subject of extradition proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, noted that it is not the Government’s position that some form of test or certification should be required in the context of the matter of extradition. I quote from the oral evidence of the district judges which was given to the committee in October 2014:
“There is the duty solicitor situation, which is at the first hearing. We are enormously reliant on our duty solicitors, and our view is that, with one or two possible exceptions, they perform their task extremely well. I am not able to give you, and I do not think either of my colleagues here is able to give you, any example of where we thought that an individual was let down by the duty solicitor”.
Given that evidence, in our view as a Government it is difficult to justify the potentially considerable cost and inconvenience of seeking to introduce a certification system in regard to extradition. Accordingly, it remains the Government’s position that we will not go down that route.
My noble friend Lady Wilcox alluded to the provision of personal support units in the matter of civil cases before the courts and inquired whether it might be possible to extend such a provision to cases of extradition. It is a point that we notice and a point of interest, and I will undertake to write to her on the subject to see whether that matter can be taken forward. It is a novel suggestion, and one that we are willing to consider very seriously.
On assurances, matters are still the subject of inquiry. We are asked when it is likely that the Government will complete their analysis of this matter. They have undertaken to do so before the end of the year. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will be aware, winter comes early in Scotland, and so when we refer to “autumn” we may be there already. We are concerned that that should be done thoroughly and carefully rather than quickly. I can assure your Lordships that once that inquiry has been completed, we will seek to make your Lordships aware of its terms.
A further matter arose from the context of the United States so far as assurances are concerned. It is the position of the Government that courts are best positioned to determine what assurances may be required in each individual case of extradition. That extends to the matter of how a person is to be transferred, how the risk is to be assessed so far as their transfer is concerned, and what demands might be sought by way of assurances for bail; remembering, of course, that extradition can proceed only in trial-ready cases. However, of course, that may nevertheless involve delay before a trial commences.
There are of course varying standards of prisons, and various standards are applied in the matter of bail as between different jurisdictions. As a matter of comity, we have to be prepared to accept that in order that the extradition system can operate. There has to be a degree of reciprocity.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, alluded to the shock and fear of persons facing a foreign court. I can appreciate that. Equally, there is the shock and fear of persons facing a British court when charged with serious criminal offences. I might go further and speak by way of personal experience of the shock and fear faced by advocates sometimes facing British courts. However, it does not understate the problem. One understands that anyone who is faced with serious criminal charges will be shocked and fearful for their future, and all the more so when they are placed in a foreign jurisdiction. Nevertheless, these issues are incident to the comity that applies in the context of extradition.
If we wish to ensure that we are not a haven for criminals, we must maintain a civilised and suitable system of extradition. If we wish to secure the return of those who have committed serious criminal offences in this country, we must be prepared to allow for some degree of give and take over standards of bail, imprisonment and sentencing.
That brings me to the issue of plea bargaining. Much is said about that in the context of the United States, but at the end of the day, it is not accepted by any court that the plea bargain system is not convention-compliant. We have to acknowledge that. It may not be something that we would wish to embrace; it may not be a system we admire—but again, as a matter of comity, there has to be a degree of give and take if the extradition system is to function effectively and properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, asked about the effectiveness of the European arrest warrant in its present form. We are confident that, with the addition of the proportionality issue and the forum issue, we now have an effective system for the European arrest warrant. There were difficulties in the past, but we believe that we have moved on from there. Going back to the subject of the United States, it is again important to bear in mind the question of forum. It will be for a British court to determine where, essentially, a crime is considered to have been committed. We live in an internet age and a joined-up world. An act in one country can have its effect in another, many miles away. Nevertheless, the introduction of the forum defence—or the forum issue—gives us a further lever to ensure that appropriate cases are dealt with in British courts and are not the subject of extradition.
In that context, I would add that we still regard the arrest warrant as the final step to be taken. I reassure your Lordships that that remains the Government’s view: it is a matter of last resort.
Lord Rowlands
I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but could he advise us what stage has been reached with the Commission’s revised handbook, in which the Government have said they want to embed the principle of last resort?
Lord Keen of Elie
I understand that we are working with other EU states and the Commission on this matter. One of the aims is to ensure that appropriate consideration is given to other instruments, but there is no clear idea of when that work will be concluded.
I have been given a two-minute warning, so I will endeavour to deal with the other matters that have been raised now, if I can. I have talked about legal aid and accreditation, and proportionality. As for certification, as I have said, we hope to publish the review before the end of the year, and I would be happy to write to my noble friend Lord Inglewood and the Home Affairs Select Committee when it is available, so that it may be given consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, raised the question of liaison with family courts in the context of extradition. I can advise that there is ongoing discussion with the profession and the courts over that issue. We understand its importance, and we are seeking to explore it and come to a view, so there is ongoing work there.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood raised a further point about proportionality. I will just make it clear that, as matters now operate with the European arrest warrant, consideration will only be given to cases where, subject to trial, a sentence of at least three years’ imprisonment would be imposed. In the context of a convicted party, a sentence of at least four months should have been imposed before extradition will be considered. That has to be borne in mind. Consequently, we are in a position to avoid the sort of trivial cases—or cases that were claimed to be trivial—that were made in the past. However, the Government do not consider that it would be possible to go further than this when dealing with cases of conviction without potentially breaching the framework decision that underpins the arrest warrant itself. That is why we feel it would be difficult to go further in that context.
I have some figures among my many notes that I want to mention in answer to the question which I think the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, asked about proportionality. Since the introduction of the proportionality bar in July 2014, the National Crime Agency has refused to certify 224 European arrest warrants on the basis of the bar and other discretionary grounds. I hope that figure assists the noble Lord.
The Government are confident that the extradition process now operates in an effective and appropriate manner, balancing the interests of justice with those of the individual. The necessary protection is provided by the courts, which have the means to seek assurances from other jurisdictions in particular circumstances and according to individual cases. Of course, the question of policing those assurances is a difficult one, but the Government do not believe that a memorandum of understanding is the way forward, as that would simply raise the question of how we police the memorandum of understanding. As I say, that matter is still the subject of further inquiry.
In closing, I once again thank my noble friend Lord Inglewood, the members of the committee and all those who have spoken today. I only hope that in replying, I have done justice to the debate.
Lord Empey
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, could he update us on the Polish situation, which was producing such a vast number of cases at the time we were investigating?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am aware that, according to the statistics over the past five years, a very large proportion of European arrest warrant requests—in excess of 30%—did emanate from Poland. I will write to the noble Lord with updated figures, as I do not have them to hand at present.
Lord Inglewood
My Lords, the debate draws to its conclusion when my noble and learned friend sits down, but I want to make just two points arising out of his remarks to us, for which I am grateful. First, talking about certification and legal aid, he emphasised economics. But a lot of the evidence that we heard suggested—I would not want to put it higher than that—that doing what was advocated might well save money, and I have always understood that one of the themes of this Government is that they want to save public money. If that can be substantiated, it seems to me to justify adopting the suggestions we have put forward—and it would seem worth substantiating it one way or another.
Secondly, turning to assurances, it was good of my noble and learned friend to say that he would write to me about this, but then he said, “Of course, one has to remember that I am a Scot, and autumn comes early in Scotland”. Well, I am a Cumbrian, and I know that the further north you go the earlier autumn comes, but I draw to his attention the corollary of that—spring comes late, and we are in London here.
I thank all the speakers who have taken part in this debate. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, they have “jollied it along”, because they have—very helpfully—amplified the tone of the discussions we had in the committee as we were writing the report. I would also like to say that, as your Lordships all know, we had very late notice of the changing of the time of this debate. A number of people who wished to take part, and had put their names down to speak, found that they were unable to do so. On a personal level, I seem to be plagued by this particular problem: it happened to me just before the summer break. I make a plea to the business managers of the House—the big beasts, who are here all the time: it is difficult for those of us who are always being told that we are part-time Members simply to drop everything and change our plans at the last minute. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man for them to make their timetabling a trifle more precise than may have been the case of late.
Finally, it seems to emerge from our work that there are two key aspects of extradition. The first is that the rule of law, both in our jurisdiction and outside it, is of very real importance to everyone. The second is that extradition deals with real people who have real families, and just because someone is accused of a crime or convicted of one, that does not mean they become a non-person, with no rights at all. A proper extradition system has to ensure that there is no conflict between the two.
House of Lords
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Budget: Household Impact
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wood of Anfield
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to publish a distributional analysis of the impact of the Budget on households with different levels of income.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord O'Neill of Gatley) (Con)
My Lords, distributional analysis of the impacts of government policy across household income distribution was published by HM Treasury alongside the summer Budget. The analysis presents the cumulative impacts of policy decisions since the June 2010 Budget, up to and including the 2015 summer Budget. It shows that the proportion of public spending received by households in each income quintile remained similar between 2010-11 and 2017-18.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that the Budget has made 8.4 million working families worse off, many considerably so, through tax credit changes. However, the Chancellor has unilaterally decided not to tell the British public from now on what the distributional impact of the Budget measures will be. It is ludicrous to argue, as he does, that having a deficit justifies not publishing information about the regressive effects of the Budget. Does the Minister agree with the Resolution Foundation, which said:
“Deciding to ditch Budget distributional analysis is a retrograde move for which there is no plausible good explanation”?
Will he urge the Chancellor to rethink this attempt to hide information from the public?
Lord O’Neill of Gatley
My Lords, contrary to that question, as a result of some discussions involving the Chancellor, the specific distributional analysis that was requested was posted on the government website on 21 July. There followed a number of conversations outlining the Treasury’s belief that the new analysis was intellectually superior to those in the preceding Parliaments. I should add, however, that the requested distributional analysis has indeed been published, despite the apparent lack of awareness of it displayed in the previous question.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, it is certainly a disgrace that the distributional analysis was not published with the Budget, a practice followed by the coalition every year so that questions could be asked during Budget-related debates. Can the Minister confirm the analysis of the IFS around the distribution that the only gainers from the tax and benefit changes are the richest eighth and ninth deciles, and that the big losses are all concentrated in the poorest first to seventh deciles, with the very poorest among the biggest losers?
Lord O’Neill of Gatley
My Lords, the distributional analysis subsequently published on the government website, as I just outlined, actually shows that if one needed to specifically pick where the impact was felt most severely across the different quintiles of income distribution, it was in the highest 20%.
Lord Vinson (Con)
My Lords, when addressing this Question, could the Minister bring to the attention of the House that, according to Treasury figures on 21 July, the debt-servicing costs of our huge borrowings is £1,841 per household? Is it surprising that people feel hard up? That money must come out through tax, VAT and other directions somewhere. Individually per household, that is what is being paid.
Lord O’Neill of Gatley
My Lords, I cannot recollect the exact numbers but those suggested by my noble friend sound broadly accurate. It is right to refer to such parameters. Indeed, the approach towards the now preferred way of presenting the distributional analysis is predicated on taking account of the consequences of the amount of public debt and, implicitly with that, the appropriate desire of the Government to reduce that level of debt.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I thought the Minister said that the biggest losers were those with the highest incomes. Does he have any information for the House on how they are coping?
Lord O’Neill of Gatley
My Lords, I have not had time, given a very busy schedule since returning from Recess, to conduct a personal survey but if the noble Lord would like to join me in such an activity, perhaps we should undertake it together.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the policy of subsidising low wages and creating dependency on high welfare payments was instituted by the last Labour Government? Is it not very rich of Labour to criticise this Government for unwinding that by ensuring that people have higher wages and lower taxes, and that their dependency on welfare is reduced?
Lord O’Neill of Gatley
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that important point. As I hoped to suggest at the appropriate moment—it is here—this Government were elected with the clear intention of reducing the burden of taxation and bringing us to a lower-tax and less welfare-dependent society. That is what is being done further in this latest Budget.
Baroness Manzoor (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that going on the backs of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society cannot be the way forward, if we want a genuinely equal society that really looks after the very poor and most vulnerable—people with illnesses who cannot go out to work, or people who are on tax credits who already go out to work and are suffering because they do not get the wages due to them?
Lord O’Neill of Gatley
My Lords, I do not want to bore Members of the House by repeating things I have already said but the distributional analysis shows that the biggest burden has been on the highest quintiles. Let me highlight another important factor: this morning, we had the latest employment and earning statistics. In addition to the rather pleasant news that unemployment has fallen further, we have reached a new level of record full-time employment and, very encouragingly for all members of our earning and working society, average earnings have accelerated now to a level of 2.9% year on year, making it clear that the benefits for those in work are starting to increase more and more.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the whole purpose of tax credits was to make work pay, and 8.4 million people have lost income through the Government’s changes. The Minister said that his way of showing the analysis—his publication—is the preferred way. It seems to me that the only people who prefer it are the Government. Does he understand that it would be right to commit to the public being able to see the impact of the individual measures of the Budget, and that it should be published alongside the Budget at the same time?
Lord O’Neill of Gatley
My Lords, the much-quoted research of the IFS is to be complimented, as it offers an independent judgment on the Government’s fiscal policies. The Government’s own fiscal measures are presented in great detail in the Budget report and assessed independently in many details by the independent ONS. The distributional analysis that has been requested and tabled here has now been presented in the traditional format that was agreed by the previous coalition.
NHS: Clinical Commissioning Groups
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Meacher
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of NHS England’s management of clinical commissioning group allocations under the current funding formula.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, decisions on clinical commissioning group allocations are taken independently of government by NHS England, in order that such an important issue as funding is made objectively and free from perceived political considerations. The Government set some broad principles to which they must conform. NHS England’s decisions are informed by the recommendations of the independent Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As he will know, the Secretary of State is responsible for ensuring that NHS England allocates resources fairly across the NHS. Is the Minister aware that, at present, allocations to clinical commissioning groups are hugely variable in relation to the Treasury manual formula? For example, west London receives 31% more than the formula, while Hounslow receives 9% less than the formula, representing a discrepancy of some £110 million from one trust to another in relation to the formula? Despite some recent improvements, does the Minister share the concern expressed by the National Audit Office about the failure to end this unfairness—and, indeed, even the lack of any timescale within which to rectify this matter? Will he give an assurance to the House that within five years there will be a resolution?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Baroness raises a very important issue. I think that she is raising issues not about the actual formula but about the speed at which NHS England reached the target levels of the formula. She points to the discrepancy of west London, which is 31% over the formula. I can tell her that NHS England is committed by 2017-18 to bringing all those under the formula by more than 5% up to that level. It will also be encouraged to address the issue of CCGs that are above the formula.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, given that the expertise of the CCGs is also very variable, in some areas the commissioning support groups are particularly important. Is the Minister satisfied that both the expertise and the funding of the commissioning support groups is appropriate?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Baroness is right that there is considerable variation in the performance of CCGs and, indeed, commissioning support groups. In an effort to address that variation, we are in discussions with the King’s Fund to publish in a very transparent and open way the performance of individual CCGs.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study was published in the Lancet yesterday. It showed that if the south-east of England were a country, it would come top of the 22 most industrialised countries in terms of health outcomes, whereas the north-west would be in the bottom range of countries. Does he accept that in the end this is a ministerial responsibility, and can he explain why allocations to CCGs, last year and this year, put much more money into the south-east of England than into the north-west?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The method of allocation is based around population, demographics and deprivation. The formula has developed over many years. The current formula was developed by the Nuffield Trust. There is no intention in the formula to skew the allocation from one part of the country to another. It is based in an independent and transparent way around population and deprivation.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the inequity of allocations to CCGs is reflected and made worse in allocations on mental health which, for historical reasons, are very skewed to where there are large hospitals? Not only that, but at the moment it seems that CCGs are not even spending the money that is allocated to them for mental health on mental health but are diverting it to other areas. What is going to be done about this in terms of the fairness of the allocations and the insistence that the money should be spent on what it is intended for?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I am not convinced that the method of allocation is unfair. ACRA will soon be reviewing its method of allocation for 2016-17. I repeat that it is an independent process. How CCGs allocate the money they receive to mental health, physical health, public health or anything else is up to them. With the King’s Fund, we are introducing a range of measures to enable us to see how individual CCGs are performing.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, is not the fundamental problem that we have more than 400 commissioning bodies commissioning in different aspects for different services, and that leads to variability? The answer has to be what the Barker commission recommended: a single commissioner that commissions for primary care, community care, acute services and mental health and asks for the outcomes that we need.
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Lord makes an interesting and perceptive point. I have no doubt that if we look at the commissioning landscape in five years’ time there will be a lot more integrated commissioning and that social care and healthcare will be much more joined up.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, the criteria that the Minister mentioned sound all very well, but they do not take account of existing levels of ill health in the most disadvantaged areas of the country. The criteria he quoted do not take account of the need for catch-up for those populations.
Lord Prior of Brampton
The report by the Public Accounts Committee raised the issue of whether deprivation was properly taken into account by the formula used by ACRA, and ACRA has agreed that in its new formulation it will look again at the adjustment it makes to the formula for deprivation.
Child Development
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Massey of Darwen
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage the sharing of information about a child’s development between children’s centres and local schools.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, the Government are working to strengthen links between schools and children’s centre services. Statutory guidance stresses the importance of children’s centres working with partners for the benefit of children and their families. If centres are providing childcare, they need to comply with early years foundation stage requirements around information sharing when a child moves to a new provider, such as a school reception class.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that response. Is she aware of the report on children’s centres from Action for Children which states that 36% of children’s centres have no arrangements for sharing information on child development with schools? Does she agree that enhancing the role of children’s centres and making them available to schools would ensure better results for children? Do the Government agree that cutting children’s centres is no way to go about things?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am aware of the report from Action for Children. The flip side is that 65% of children’s centres have arrangements. Obviously there is more to be done. We want those arrangements in place across the system, which is why the Government have awarded £5 million to 77 teaching schools alliances across the country to partner with local early years providers to drive up standards and share best practice.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is only by having children’s centres that crucial data sharing can take place? The result of a freedom of information request by the Children’s Society shows that spending on children’s centres this year alone has fallen by 17%, with the consequence that even more than the 600 that have already been closed will close their doors. Does the Minister share my concerns?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Children’s centres provide extremely valuable services, but I think we all agree that what is most important is the impact that these centres have on the ground and on the families that need them most. In Bromley, for instance, the number of centres did indeed reduce from 18 to six, but these centres are now located in the areas of greatest need and have universal and very targeted services. As a result, the number of families accessing this vital support has actually increased. We are now seeing a record number of families using children’s centres.
Baroness Perry of Southwark (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that this Government have done more to help very young children to have the maximum opportunity in their education than any Government in the past?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Indeed I agree with my noble friend. In fact, the Government are spending over £2 billion a year on early intervention. We have the pupil premium, which is helping to improve educational outcomes, and the early years pupil premium, which is helping to narrow the attainment gap for three and four year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds. Crucially, we now have a million more pupils in good or outstanding schools, because we know that education is key to the life chances of young people in this country.
Lord Hylton (CB)
Obviously, professionals caring for children need to have the full facts, but will the Minister confirm that information will not be passed around without informing the parents of those children?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, there are rules around data sharing that cover this point.
Baroness Howells of St Davids (Lab)
Would the Minister also consider extending to foster parents the courtesy shown to looked-after children? My mailbag is full of complaints about how different schools operate the funding allocated to those children. The foster parents themselves are prohibited from asking questions because they could be deregulated from the system. Several foster parents, especially middle-class black women, claim that the schools accuse them of expecting too much from those schools, simply because the children of the parents who are now fostering went to public school. This is jolly unfair, and I ask the Minister to look again at how much information is available to those foster parents.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank the noble Baroness for raising her concern. I will certainly take it back to the department and raise the issue.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
Picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will the Minister give us an assurance that other agencies, apart from schools and children’s centres, that are in possession of information that might have an impact on how children develop—this might include, for example, the health service, the police and sometimes social services—share that information appropriately within the guidelines, and that children’s life chances are not spoilt for the lack of that information circulating?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I said, there are rules around this. In fact we are having a consultation around the future of children’s services that will be very broad-ranging: it will look at how they can support young people, families and children, and at how different agencies work together. That will be a great opportunity to ensure that we are raising and dealing with any issues that might still be outstanding.
Lord Christopher (Lab)
My Lords, I hope this question is relevant. One area that is not being studied, and which I think should be, is the effect of new technology on children’s development—and ultimately on that of adults. A few days ago, the press said that there is a common pattern of children waking up in the middle of the night to see if they have any messages or whether they should send some. It seems to me that someone should collate this information to find out exactly what is happening and what is likely to be the result.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I am sure that there is a lot of work being done. This a fast-moving area with lots of new research. It is certainly something to which the Government will remain alive.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
Will the review of children’s services of which the Minister talks also consider the availability of children’s mental health services, which in many parts of the country are totally inadequate for the needs of children? Will the review cover that and look at the question of adequacy?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
It will be a wide-ranging public consultation on the future of children’s services and I am sure that children, families and young people with mental health needs will be included. We look forward to listening to the views of the public, carers, local authorities and all interested parties about how these services could be better delivered in future.
Asylum
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Green of Deddington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the scope for those currently claiming asylum in other European Union member states subsequently to move on to the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the UK operates rigorous border controls to prevent illegal migration. The Government have already introduced tough new measures and are negotiating with the European Union further to prevent the abuse of free movement rights by EU citizens. We can also refuse EU nationals at the border if we consider that they present a genuine threat to society.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Will he confirm that EU directives require that protection be granted not just for those in fear of persecution but also where there is a,
“serious … threat … of indiscriminate violence”,
to a civilian due to “armed conflict”?
Does he therefore agree that member states will be obliged to grant protection to most of those now fleeing from the terrible events in Syria as well as many from Iraq, Libya, Yemen and some countries in Africa? Given that the EU border controls have now almost collapsed, the numbers could be considerable. Finally, as most of those concerned will later become EU citizens, will the Government, in this new situation, now seek to require work permits from EU citizens migrating to Britain so as to reduce the numbers overall?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the EU directives, like the refugee convention and UK national policy, are based on individual need rather than nationality. That need may, as the noble Lord said, arise from indiscriminate violence, but that is again based on an assessment of the risks to the individual claimant. Briefly, on his other points, as noble Lords are aware, this Government have already introduced a series of tough domestic measures to restrict access to benefits for EU jobseekers, to punish the abuse of free movement rights on which we are leading the way in Europe. The Government maintain that free movement is an important principle of the EU, but that it is not an unqualified right and must be grounded in freedom to take up work.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the question was about the secondary movement of people claiming asylum in another EU member state, so I do not understand the answer, which was about EU nationals and free movement of people who have EU citizenship. Can the Minister confirm that the only possibility for secondary movement of asylum seekers is a small one if, under the Dublin rules, they have a family connection to someone who is already a refugee here? Otherwise, someone can move only if they have become fully settled in another member state and some years later acquire EU citizenship. There is little evidence of substantial such movement. Is this not just an example of how Eurosceptics are trying to confuse the issue by conflating EU free movement of EU nationals with the unfree movement of non-EU asylum seekers, with which the Government, unfortunately, seem to be colluding?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The Government adopt responsible measures and have taken a responsible attitude in addressing the issue of the migration crisis across Europe. On the noble Baroness’s assessment of the Dublin convention, she is correct: that does stand.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister remain convinced that we should keep out of the Schengen area?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Evidence suggests that that was a very sensible thing to do.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, Save the Children is calling on all EU member states to adopt an excellent five-point plan which would guarantee the safety of refugees as well as deal with the root causes of the problems in Syria. Will the Minister meet with Save the Children to discuss this plan and see how it can be further adopted in all member states?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Baroness raises an important point. As she is aware, under the chairmanship of the Home Secretary and the Communities Secretary, a new group of senior government Ministers has been set up which also includes local authorities. The group will also meet those who are directly involved in dealing with refugees.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, we have time. I suggest that we go first to the Cross Benches, if we go round in order, and then to my noble friend Lord Higgins.
Baroness Afshar
My Lords, is there any awareness of cause and effect in this process as to why all these people are coming out? Which countries have contributed to this problem? Is there a moral duty to think about what has caused this process? The people who come are the best, and they serve the countries to which they go to the best of their ability. I have done so and I am sure that many others might do so also.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I recognise the point that the noble Baroness makes, and that is why we have heard both the Prime Minister and President Obama say only yesterday that we must deal with the cause of the issue. However, in terms of moral duty and obligations, Britain has shown that it has a comprehensive view of dealing with this issue, not least by the £1 billion it has thus far given for assistance to those refugees in most desperate need around the Syrian borders.
Lord Higgins
I apologise for not giving way to the noble Baroness, who I did not see intervening. Does my noble friend agree that the Government should consult urgently with the German Government to establish precisely which documents, passports and so on being issued by the Germans to those accepted as refugees into Germany will entitle them to travel elsewhere in the European Union and the UK? Will these documents be treated as if they were normal German passports?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend raises an important point. Let me assure him that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary raised these very issues on Monday at a council meeting convened with all European partners. We have made our position clear that the Dublin convention and the rules surrounding it will apply, and continue to apply, to all Syrian refugees—indeed, to all refugees who enter the European Union. They must claim asylum at their first port of entry, and normal rules will apply.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, does the Minister think that the current European regulations are working, and indeed workable, in the face of the sheer volume of people who are seeking to migrate?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The right reverend Prelate again raises an important issue. Evidence suggests that we need to keep reviewing the situation regularly across Europe, and that is why Britain has taken a lead in ensuring that we play our role in welcoming, as we will do very shortly, an additional number of Syrian refugees to the United Kingdom, but directly from those areas and countries that are picking up the biggest impact of the current crisis in Syria—Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. We are working closely with both our EU partners and those countries neighbouring Syria.
Hereditary Peers By-Election
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Enterprise Bill
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the draft Orders laid before the House on 18 June be approved.
Relevant documents: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 7 September
Motions agreed.
European Union (Approvals) Bill [HL]
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Economic Case for HS2 (Economic Affairs Committee Report)
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hollick
That this House takes note of the Report of the Economic Affairs Committee on The Economic Case for HS2 (1st Report, Session 2014–15, HL Paper 134).
Lord Hollick (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to introduce the report of the Economic Affairs Committee entitled The Economics of High Speed 2. Speaking in June this year, the Secretary of State for Transport said:
“The time to debate the various merits of high-speed rail is over”.
I am delighted that so many Members of your Lordships’ House are here this afternoon to prove him wrong.
I would like first of all to record the committee’s thanks to Tom Worsley, our specialist adviser, and to committee staff Rob Whiteway, Ben McNamee and Stephanie Johnson for their valuable support.
When he appeared before our committee last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that, despite the very high cost of HS2 and the many controversies over aspects of it, each generation had a responsibility to take big controversial decisions to improve the national infrastructure. In his view, HS2 is just one such decision facing this generation. The Chancellor’s enthusiasm could not be faulted, but in the absence of a rigorous, independent and transparent appraisal of the costs and benefits of this huge undertaking, HS2 has become a project of faith, all too often supported only by overblown rhetoric.
The construction of the new railway and the cost of the rolling stock is estimated, in 2011 prices, to amount to £50 billion. The committee estimated that this would be £56.6 billion in 2014 prices. The overall cost of £50 billion includes an estimated £21.2 billion for phase 2, from Birmingham to Manchester and to Leeds. This estimate is a number imposed by the Treasury and, in the absence of a detailed cost plan, is simply a placeholder. The Treasury estimates that the net cost to the taxpayer is expected to be £31.5 billion at 2011 prices, or £35.6 billion at 2014 prices; the net cost taking into account the cost, the running cost and all the income—that is the final bill that lands with the taxpayer.
This cost will be borne by all taxpayers, many of whom will derive no benefit from the project. Yet the Government assume that fares on HS2 will be the same as on the existing network. Would it not be more sensible to make those benefiting most from the railway, principally business travellers, contribute more towards the cost through higher fares and relieve the burden on taxpayers generally?
It was unclear from the evidence whether all the necessary infrastructure improvements to complement HS2 were included, and this could push the overall cost much higher. The cost of construction is, surprisingly, up to nine times higher than the cost of constructing high-speed lines in France. Sir David Higgins said that the UK cannot hide behind the idea that the UK is more densely populated than France. We welcome his commitment to learning from international examples to reduce cost.
We heard that there are a number of ways that HS2 could be built at a lower cost. The Department for Transport told us that the additional cost of designing the train to run at 400 kilometres per hour, as opposed to 300 kilometres per hour as in Europe, was 9% of the total cost. Significant savings could also be made by terminating the line at Old Oak Common. This would eliminate the need for expensive tunnelling under London and substantially reduce the cost and disruption over many years of redeveloping Euston station, which has already risen to £7 billion from the original £2 billion estimate. Many witnesses raised concerns about cost escalation. These concerns appear to be shared by the Major Projects Authority, whose recent report gave HS2, for the second year in a row, an amber/red rating. Will the Minister please explain the reason for this high-risk rating and why the Government are refusing to publish its report?
The Government’s principal justification for building HS2 is to provide capacity to meet long-term rail demand and for long-distance travel. From the limited information on rail usage in the public domain, the capacity problem on the west coast main line is caused mainly by commuter traffic, particularly travelling into London. The Government have failed to make a convincing case that there is a capacity problem on long-distance services. The Secretary of State for Transport told us that long-distance services arriving in London in the morning peak hour,
“are already at full capacity”,
but that is not borne out by the statistics that we received. Long-distance services arriving in London between 7 am and 10 am have 57% seats taken on average. Virgin Trains, the operator of long-distance services on the west coast main line told us that its busiest train is the first off-peak train leaving London on a Friday evening. That is hardly surprising when the ticket cost of the last peak train to Manchester is six times more than the cost of the first off-peak—one would wait another 10 minutes or so. This cries out for the introduction of variable pricing to manage capacity bottlenecks, which is often routine in the airline industry.
The crowding statistics published by the Department for Transport last week showed that the busiest trains from Birmingham, Manchester and Sheffield, are the local services. The Secretary of State has now acknowledged that HS2 will mainly relieve congestion on commuter trains, principally into London, yet he continues to claim that intercity west coast services will be overwhelmed by the year 2033-34 under the projections of a 2.2% annual growth in long-distance travel. However, in the Government’s economic case for HS2—a document published last year—a chart showing projected demand for Virgin services from Manchester Piccadilly to London up to 2026, which assumed not 2.2% growth but 5% annual growth, revealed that the trains are only 75% full most of the time. The spike in demand between 4 pm and 6 pm is again most likely to be commuter traffic as the Manchester to Euston services stop at Stockport, Wilmslow and Macclesfield.
The problem with the statistics on long-distance rail is that no distinction is made between passengers travelling between Manchester and London and between Manchester and Stockport on long-distance trains. Both are counted as long-distance journeys. In the absence of detailed ticket sales data, it is difficult to assess the actual demand for intercity travel and therefore assess the validity of the Government’s growth projections.
We were not satisfied that the alternative ways of improving capacity have been rigorously and fully assessed. Additional capacity could be provided by incremental improvements to the existing network—longer trains, fewer first-class carriages and in-cab signalling to allow trains to travel more closely together, for instance. Professor Stephen Glaister told us that these incremental improvements could provide significant extra capacity at a much lower cost than HS2 and at the very least delay the need for the decision to be taken on the need for an additional railway line for some years.
Incremental improvements were rejected by the Government, however, for two main reasons. They would provide only a third of the number of extra seats that HS2 would and the work required would be too disruptive. But the committee concluded that the Government had failed to make a convincing case for why the capacity that HS2 would provide was required. The Government have yet to reveal the price of disruption that HS2 would cause. On both grounds, the comparison is unproven.
The Government’s other reason for building the line is that the improved connectivity between cities would support economic growth and contribute towards rebalancing the economy. That is an important objective that we fully support, but is HS2 the right answer?
While investment outside London is long overdue, the committee was not convinced that the Government had shown that HS2 is the best way of stimulating growth in the cities of the north and the Midlands. Evidence from other countries suggests that London will be the biggest beneficiary economically from a project like HS2. We heard evidence from Emile Quinet, an expert on TGV, that although cities such as Lyon had indeed benefited from TGV, it was Paris which had benefited the most. Studies in Spain and Japan came to similar conclusions. If London commuters benefit the most from the increase in capacity and London benefits the most economically, HS2 could actually widen the north/south divide.
We heard widespread support for improving the regional links between cities in the north to stimulate growth. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, now the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, who told us in January when he was chairman of the City Growth Commission, that connecting cities in the north is,
“‘way more important’ than making it faster to travel to London from those cities”.
The 2006 Eddington study came to a similar conclusion. As east/west links are poor and north/south links are already good, there is a strong case for prioritising the former over the latter, but following the recently announced pause to work on the electrification of the TransPennine railway, the Government are doing precisely the opposite. This pause seems to be an excuse straight out of “Yes Minister”, dreamt up by Sir Humphrey himself. Can the Minister please decipher its meaning for us?
The cost-benefit analysis of HS2 published by the Government in 2013 relies on evidence that is out of date and unconvincing. To calculate the value of a rail project, the Department for Transport places a value on time saved as the result of a faster journey. For business travellers this is calculated at £31.96 an hour. But this assumes that time spent on the train is unproductive, and that 70% of the transport benefits, which come to a whopping £40.5 billion, derive from this business value of time. As many witnesses have pointed out, time spent on a train is not at all unproductive. Virgin told us that it plans to introduce free superfast internet connectivity on board for all passengers. Following a review by the Institute for Transport Studies which concluded that there is no consensus on how business travel time should be valued, the Department for Transport admitted that fresh evidence of businesses’ willingness to pay was required, due, in their words,
“to the uncertainties and inconsistencies in the existing evidence”.
A further 33% of net transport benefits worth some £19.3 billion are derived from the value placed on non-work travel time; that is, people either commuting or travelling for leisure. These values are based on a survey of motorists that was carried out in 1994. This cannot be the best basis on which to assume almost £20 billion-worth of benefit for a major rail project. Again, the department concluded that the data are old and that fresh evidence is required. We simply do not understand why this work did not take place before the project was launched.
Much of the evidence presented to justify HS2 is either defective, unconvincing or out of date, and the process of oversight falls short of what is required for a major infrastructure project relying on substantial taxpayer money. The Department for Transport and HS2 have both carried out significant analyses of the benefits and costs of HS2, but as the sponsoring body and the implementation body respectively, neither can claim independent objectivity. That, and the failure to put into the public domain the information on capacity that is essential to evaluating the case for additional capacity for HS2, means that we have a £56 billion project requiring £36 billion of public subsidy on which no return is expected and which has failed to be independently and objectively assessed. In my opinion, this points to the urgent need for the creation of an independent body—an OBR for public investment, if you like—charged with the responsibility to review major publicly funded infrastructure projects. Such a body could provide the public, Parliament and the Government with a robust and dispassionate assessment of projects like HS2 and Hinkley Point and help us to determine whether these great schemes are the most cost-effective and appropriate way of investing public funds to meet the infrastructure needs that our country so badly requires.
Lord Vinson (Con)
My Lords, I think the House may be interested that I saw Professor Richard Wellings of the Institute of Economic Affairs this morning to get the latest figures. He has done a great deal of research on this, and is mentioned in the publication today. Allowing for all the enormous add-ons that are bound to happen and the linkages necessary to link the new system with the old system, which is an apparent weakness, he considers that the overall cost will be at least £80 billion.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, as a member of the Select Committee that produced the report on the economics of High Speed 2, I stress that we were unanimous on the need for infrastructure investment in the UK. It is vital to the success of our economy, and if we neglect it we will not attain the economic growth that we need to build prosperity. We also agreed with the Government’s aim to rebalance the UK economy by creating a northern powerhouse with high growth and increased productivity in the north of England. However, after taking evidence from many expert witnesses, we were unconvinced that this costly project was the right infrastructure investment to which to attach such high priority. We were unconvinced, too, that it was the best way to achieve the Government’s goal of a northern powerhouse.
The Government claim in their response to the Select Committee report that the case for HS2 is clear and robust. Regrettably, it is neither. Of course there is a case for it, but much more clarity is needed about its value, about alternatives using existing lines, about the opportunity costs of the investment, about the robustness of the Government’s claims about capacity, about long-term projected demand for rail travel on this line and about its value with respect to connectivity to the north of England.
These questions are particularly pertinent in the context of austerity policies in which the Government are cutting public expenditure in many areas. Nearly all government departments are struggling to produce illustrative cuts of 40% and 25% for the spending review. Apparently, there will be little money for capital development. In such circumstances, many will ask whether allocating £50 billion for this project is justified. Moreover, as has just been suggested, it will be an underestimate when the extra work needed to mitigate environmental effects and the extra compensation that is likely to be demanded are taken into account.
Another reason for questioning it is that a high proportion of the beneficiaries will be the business people who travel on this line, who will not, according to the Government’s current plans, be charged higher fares, in spite of the time they will save on these ultra-fast trains. Can the Minister say why the Government are not assuming any upward adjustment of fares to reduce the high cost to the taxpayer? Not raising fares will increase the regressive nature of this investment. Why on earth is the Department for Transport treating Network Rail capital spending on an as-incurred basis rather than as an asset on which a return is required from fare revenues and access charges?
The second question of context about which I raise concerns is the Government’s projections of demand. I readily concur that the demand for rail travel has gone up greatly over the last 20 years. It does, however, seem dangerous to assume that demand from business travellers will go on rising exponentially. High-speed broadband, video conferencing and further technological developments seem likely to reduce the need for inter-city rail travel by business men and women. Will the Minister tell the House why there has not been more explicit consideration of these factors, which are likely to affect demand?
On capacity on the west coast main line, is it not odd to attach so much importance to capacity problems, when, as my noble friend Lord Hollick mentioned, long-distance trains for Euston are only 43% full on average and even at peak times are between only 50% and 60% full? Indeed, there is more spare capacity on this line than on any other main line out of London, with the exception of HS1.
As to alternative solutions, the Government concede that extending all trains to their maximum length makes an important contribution, but this solution has by no means been fully implemented. Would not a further substantial reduction in the number of first class carriages also help, as my noble friend Lord Hollick suggested? Railway experts also suggest that technological improvements to signalling can increase the number of trains using existing tracks. Why have the Government made no reference to this in their response to the committee?
Is there not a danger that many other parts of the railway system where investment is needed will be neglected while HS2 is given priority? We have already seen recent cancellations in starts for electrification schemes elsewhere. The mere fact that HS2 is planned to travel at a maximum speed of 400 kilometres per hour suggests that it has become something of a vanity project. This ultra-high speed, considerably higher than that of high-speed trains in other countries, adds a great deal to the cost and uses resources that might be applied to improving other lines. Will the Minister comment on this, too?
On connectivity in the north and the stimulation of economic growth, the Government have failed to respond to the committee’s evidence that capital cities appear to be bigger beneficiaries of high-speed links than provincial cities connected to the capital via these lines. Nor have the Government given adequate consideration to comparing the relative contribution of £50 billion of other forms of investment in the north of England, such as further education and skills training or investment grants for SMEs to give but two examples. The committee also suggested that improving conventional rail links in the north, and starting the investment in high-speed trains across the north of England, might make a greater contribution to its economic reinvigoration. The Government’s claim that HS3 can be built later is not a satisfactory response.
To conclude, I ask the Government to do further work on the many issues raised by the committee before the enabling legislation for HS2 goes through Parliament. To do otherwise, in the words of one of the experts who gave us evidence, is simply taking a punt.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I supported HS2 in government and I support it out of government. I will deal with just a limited number of the issues as I have just six minutes.
That trains today are 60% to 75% full and that there will be no new source of capacity is probably the most frightening statement for anyone in the railway industry to hear. The forecasts for capacity are among the most conservative that anyone could imagine in the industry. Our year-on-year experience already overwhelms those forecasts. Without HS2, I dread to think what we will do with passengers who need to travel when we get to 2026.
I shall address capacity in terms not just of seats, but of train paths. This August, the west coast main line was able finally to offer six to seven additional services from London to Blackpool via Shrewsbury, only off-peak. That was done only by the most strenuous reworking of that timetable. We are out of train paths. With so many cities in the Midlands and the north telling us that they need additional train services for their business communities to grow and to remain viable, the department and the industry would be most grateful to know which trains Members wish to take off to free up the train paths that are very evidently needed. They are coming to the department with very significant business cases behind them. We are out of capacity.
The alternatives offer only about one-third of the capacity that HS2 offers. Consider the impact of delivering those alternatives. They require virtually every tunnel, viaduct, bridge and embankment to be rebuilt, taking virtually every weekend, year in, year out, causing the most extraordinary disruption. We live in a society in which people travel on weekends, not just on weekdays. We have the experience of the west coast main line to go by. A £10 billion investment over 10 years, causing disruption virtually every weekend and indeed on a significant number of other days, and delivering almost no increase in capacity because it is so challenging to deliver on the existing lines—very many of which, frankly, Brunel would recognise—constitutes a huge challenge and does not deliver very much. Living with it in the interim would be a nightmare as it would in effect shut down business for a significant number of communities. Of course, this project matters for regeneration. Even the methodologies used by the department, which are dictated by the Treasury, and which I think most of us would consider underestimate the benefits and the cost-benefit ratio, demonstrate that it would deliver a cost-benefit ratio of more than 2.3. However, that assumes that passenger numbers are frozen three years after phase 2 opens in 2036. I do not think that anybody in this Chamber believes that that is a viable scenario, so we are looking at a cost-benefit ratio far more like 4.5 or even higher, and that is phenomenal. The systems that we use to assess cost-benefit ratios significantly understate major long-term project benefits, and that is a reality which I think many in this House understand.
There is an argument that this project benefits only London. The people who say that should talk to those driving growth in the Midlands and the north who negotiate with investors who will come in and build new businesses, because they argue that they need local connectivity. I will come to that, and it is absolutely crucial. When we compete for an investment that could be placed in Poland, France or Spain, we have something to offer that those countries cannot, which is excellent access to London, the largest financial, legal, PR, advertising and technology market in Europe. That tips the balance in a highly competitive environment. When we compete for every penny of investment we get, it is a question of whether it goes not to another part of the UK but to another part of the EU. That is absolutely crucial. I have heard this from people involved in the day-to-day hard negotiations, and I take their word for it.
It is also true that we must build local connectivity but these issues are not alternatives. I will enjoy hearing from the Government how they are progressing with the review of electrification and other programmes in the north but I am very aware that Network Rail struggles with skills, capacity and management issues. That is entirely separate from the investment in HS2. I honestly do not believe that this is an investment issue: it is a capacity issue within the current system. It has to be resolved but these are not, frankly, alternatives.
This scheme should have been built 15 years ago. There is genuine opposition to it. It would go through beautiful countryside and many people are appalled by that. I understand that. However, we are at the point where we simply cannot delay any longer. People need to move to live the lives that they want and to generate the economy that we need.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, HS2 will pass through my diocese from south of Crewe until it reaches Manchester Airport. I read the committee’s report with great interest and was struck, above all, by the levels of uncertainty which evidently still exist around the project.
The response of the Government to the EAC’s report seems to contain little direct analysis of the pros and cons of the arguments advanced by the committee but simply restates previous positions. It is the rather poor level of evidence and analysis offered in support of HS2 which concerns me most. Perhaps I should be in favour of acts of faith, as the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, suggested. However, there is a huge investment of public funds dedicated to this project, unlike the 19th-century railways.
The strongest aspect of the case seems to be on the grounds of capacity, relating not so much to inter-city capacity—as we have heard—but rather to the congested commuter routes in north London. The problems around London look set to grow, since economic success breeds more economic success, with consequent population increases. I would be interested in the assumptions made by the Government about population increases through this century. All the indications are that the population will grow rather more than previously estimated. If so, the arguments on the basis of capacity gain even more traction, especially in relation to commuter capacity.
However, to argue for HS2 on the grounds of commuter capacity around London is a little like the tail wagging the dog: it seems a very indirect and expensive argument as presently put. Perhaps the case for major infrastructure improvements often has a speculative aspect—a long-term character—and a judgment has to be made. HS2 has clearly caught the imagination in many quarters. I am among those, however, who have major questions about the scheme as presently designed. I rather favour a new north-to-south railway, but one that would not be so expensive.
Will the Minister comment on two aspects of the proposals? The first aspect—to which reference has already been made—concerns the proposed speed of the trains of up to 400 kilometres per hour, which is 250 miles per hour. We are a much smaller country than most of those which have high-speed rail lines. What is the real basis for wanting the fastest trains in the world? Bishops are rather coy about quoting the Bible in this Chamber, but the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, encourages me to do so:
“vanity of vanities; all is vanity”,
from the Book of Ecclesiastes.
The business case is largely built—as we have heard—on the assumption that travel time is largely wasted time, so the shorter the journey the greater the saving. I travel regularly on the present west coast main line and I observe a great deal of work being done during the journey. So what is the real basis for the assumption that the journey time is wasted time? With better broadband connection even more work would be done.
There is also the impact on the design of the railway if you want to go at 250 miles per hour: lots of tunnels, cuttings and embankments to make sure that the line is as straight and level as possible. You need that for very high speeds. A slower railway—quite fast, but slower—would have much more flexibility in its possible route. In relation to speed—I have not heard this commented on—my reflections from a previous incarnation as a scientist tell me that the kinetic energy of the moving object is proportional to the square of its speed. That means that if you double the speed of something you quadruple the energy required to get it to that speed. So going from 125 miles per hour to 250 miles per hour does not require twice the energy to get it that fast: it is four times, unless my A-level physics was just too long ago to get that right. I would, however, like to know what assessment has been done of the energy consumption relating to different speeds. As we look to a more energy-conscious world we ought to ask these questions rather carefully.
Finally, I ask the Minister about the impact of HS2 on Chester and north Wales. Table 18 in the EAC report—reproduced from the Government’s own strategic case—claims that there will be faster journeys to Chester and north Wales. However, no actual savings are listed. I assume that there would need to be a change of train at Crewe, from electric on HS2 to diesel, since the Chester line is not electrified beyond Crewe or into north Wales. At present Chester and north Wales are well served by 125-miles-per-hour diesel units in a direct service which runs hourly to and from Chester. What assurance can the Minister give me and the people of my diocese, and beyond in north Wales, that journey times from London will be much faster than now? Do the Government have any figures for what will become an indirect, rather than a direct, service, if I have understood correctly? I would be grateful if the Minister elucidated and illuminated that for me.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the Secretary of State who initiated HS2, and now as a member of the HS2 board. The House is indebted to my noble friend Lord Hollick and the committee for their report.
On the case for HS2, I gave extensive evidence to the committee on the capacity and connectivity arguments. I do not have time to repeat those here, but perhaps I could respond to two points that my noble friend made. He rightly said that capacity constraints are greatest on the commuter services, but a crucial point is that HS2 frees up substantial capacity on these commuter lines, not only into London but into every other major city of the Midlands and the north that it serves, by taking it off the long-distance services.
My noble friend also said that conventional upgrades of existing lines might be better value for money. On this, we do not need to speculate, as we have real experience. HS2 trebles west coast main line capacity. The last, highly-disruptive upgrade of the west coast main line, which many of your Lordships will remember because it inconvenienced you year after year and which was completed seven years ago, cost £9 billion. In today’s money, that alone is more than half the cost of building HS2 from London to Birmingham. Upgrading a Victorian railway is hugely disruptive and expensive, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, explained. Yet that upgrade delivered only a fraction of the capacity of a new line, and further expensive and disruptive upgrades will be needed if we do not build HS2. There is, I am afraid, no free lunch in this business.
Without HS2, we will most likely end up spending as much on upgrading the three existing Victorian main lines from north to south—not only the west coast main line to Birmingham and Manchester but the midland main line to Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield, and the east coast main line to York and the north-east. For this we would, yet again, secure only a fraction of the capacity benefits of HS2. There would also be few or none of the other benefits, including far greater reliability and resilience, much faster journey times—an hour off Manchester to London, halving the current journey time—as well as a direct connection to London’s new Crossrail line, greatly improved access to Heathrow and much better connectivity between the north and the Midlands, as well as between London and the Midlands and the north. In straight value-for-money terms, I therefore believe that HS2 is justified.
However, now that it is set to be built, I want to highlight one critical aspect where crucial decisions now need to be taken: namely, on the HS2 stations. Overseas high-speed networks have seen huge regeneration dividends from new stations. In Lyon, the TGV station at Part-Dieu has spawned a massive new business quarter: La Part-Dieu is now the second largest in France, after La Défense, employing more than 50,000 people, cementing Lyon’s place as France’s second city. Shinagawa in southern Tokyo has been similarly successful in the 12 years since the high-speed interchange station was opened there. By the way, the economic geography of Japan, which pioneered high-speed rail, is much more similar to that of the UK than is that of France. That takes up the right reverend Prelate’s point. However, there is no need to look abroad for inspiration. St Pancras has had the same effect since it was renovated and expanded to become the terminus of HS1 eight years ago. St Pancras is now at the heart of one of the biggest regeneration zones in London—the St Pancras and King’s Cross railway lands—which goes far beyond previous expectations.
The first phase of HS2, from London to Birmingham, serves four stations: Euston, Old Oak Common—on the new Crossrail line between Paddington and Heathrow—Birmingham Interchange, near Solihull, and Birmingham Curzon Street, near Birmingham Moor Street and New Street stations. At Old Oak Common, a new superhub station linking HS2, Crossrail and London Overground will serve an estimated 250,000 passengers a day. That is the equivalent of London Waterloo, the busiest station in Europe. As well as being a major interchange, Old Oak Common is part of a 155 hectare regeneration zone, an area the size of Hyde Park. There is an estimated potential for 55,000 new jobs and 24,000 new homes, as well as university campuses and other public institutions. All this depends on the new mayoral development corporation master-planning effectively and resolving land-use, landownership and financing issues. This is a key priority for the next Mayor of London.
Curzon Street HS2 station in central Birmingham will be at the heart of a regeneration zone as large as Old Oak Common—a light industrial district which has languished for decades. Birmingham City Council has created the Curzon Urban Regeneration Company, and there is the potential for 36,000 jobs and 4,000 homes to be realised. The decision to extend the Midland Metro to Curzon Street is a welcome first step, but early agreement on plans and financing mechanisms for wider infrastructure developments is now vital.
The second West Midlands station, Birmingham Interchange, on the edge of Solihull and near to Coventry, is another 145 hectare site with the potential for 20,000 new jobs and thousands of homes, transforming access to the National Exhibition Centre and Birmingham airport. The area is home to high-tech manufacturing, including Jaguar Land Rover, and it could become a major enterprise zone, but there are major unresolved green belt issues and the site is at the juncture of three local authorities, so this will not happen without strong leadership.
London Euston is the fourth of the HS2 stations: an 85 hectare site of huge commercial potential, given its prime location, but it is also the most vexed of the four because of the need to expand the station westwards and to rebuild the existing Euston station, preferably locating the platforms below ground to maximise over-site development. The latest plan for the HS2 part of Euston was published last week, but there is a long way to go in agreeing a plan for the Network Rail part of the station, and a decision on Crossrail 2, which would serve Euston, is also vital. All this needs to be joined up with commercial development partners.
In short, hundreds of thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of homes and thousands of companies could be generated by the four HS2 stations and the areas around them—but only with strong leadership and more unified and powerful planning and delivery agencies. Putting this in place is a key priority for HS2.
I end with one observation. In high-speed rail, it is a universal truth that everyone wants the stations but no one wants the lines. However, the stations alone are not enough; they need to be gateways to ambitious development and regeneration, and this needs to be planned from the outset.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have no interest to declare, except that I once was an Under-Secretary of State for Transport, but that was many years ago. There will always be difference of opinion between sides when it comes to major infrastructure projects, but there should be clarity of facts and evidence for the rest of us to decide which side is right and whether we are going in the right direction. That evidence and those facts should be respected by both sides and agreed. On that basis, people can make valid judgments. I do not believe that one can make a valid judgment as an outsider on the evidence that we have in front of us today.
Coincidentally, I travelled on the west coast line last week—I do not travel on it as often as the right reverend Prelate. It was fascinating, having heard the stories of how overcrowded it was. It was wonderfully empty. People were working on their computers on both the way up and the way down. On the way up, the train was absolutely on time and very quick; on the way down it was not quite so good, but that happens on every line. On the question of whether one needs HS2, one probably needs HS4, 5, 6 and 7 if HS3 is to be built, to satisfy the point made by noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, because it is not only people from the Midlands and the north-west who need better access into London, it is people from the west, because Paddington is hopelessly overcrowded.
The reason I decided to speak in this debate was that I was appalled by the response from the Government; it is not satisfactory. In the other place, the day after a big, detailed House of Lords report was published, the Under-Secretary of State, my honourable friend Robert Goodwill, said,
“I most heartily disagree with their report”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/15; col. WH533.]
He must have had it on his desk for less than 12 hours. To make a comment like that demeans the enormous hard work of the committee, on which I congratulate it. The written response is not much better. We have heard that it has not answered the specific points of the committee, and that is what prompted me to speak today.
I therefore want to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench a number of questions. We are all in favour of promoting regeneration, but what has been the growth in east Kent since HS1 opened? How does this compare with other areas in the south-east? What are the cost benefits on that line? If we have that sort of information, we can perhaps transpose some of it to HS2.
For every plus, there is a minus, and there are undoubtedly pluses coming from HS2. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said that there was a huge demand for it. That is not what people have told me: people in Coventry, Stoke-on-Trent, Leicester, Chesterfield, Wakefield, Durham, Chester, Lancaster, Carlisle, and Berwick-upon-Tweed have told me that their services will be reduced as a result of HS2. Their services will be less good. What savings will be made from the reduction in services on those lines?
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, about Euston station—it is a more detailed matter of city planning. It is very confusing for those of us who are interested in this subject to find that HS2 has changed the plans that it submitted two years ago, and that Euston station is going to take seven years longer to redevelop than was predicted two years ago. Where does that leave those of us who are trying to take an independent view? Does it give us any confidence in what is proposed? No, it does not. It seems to me that there will be considerably more blight for a longer time, for more people and for more existing passengers, as a result of what HS2 has decided.
Could the Minister clarify the situation on the trans-Pennine link? I mentioned it in my remarks on the gracious Speech, as I think it is the most important piece of infrastructure, linking east and west, which needs improvement, rather than north and south.
In conclusion, given the confusion and the polarisation on both sides, why do the Government not have an independent cost-benefit analysis? If we had that, we could at least refine our discussion and make up our mind, with clear facts agreed by all.
Lord Prescott (Lab)
My Lords, I have been actively involved in the development of high-speed trains from when I first entered government in 1997, when I was given the first bill within two weeks for a further £2 billion from a collapsed private HS1 project, which had made difficult statements about the cost and the people travelling on it. These estimates, which are shown and exposed in the committee’s report, which I fully support, are therefore not new to me: they show the great uncertainties involved in making an analysis on a huge amount of money, a third of which will be paid by the taxpayer. We are talking about almost a public-private operation here, so I very much support that evidence.
Of course, I was faced with the difficulty of finding £2 billion. I immediately had to bring it into public ownership, because, after all, the Government are the lender of last resort in these situations. My flatmate Dennis Skinner thought it was marvellous: he thought that the revolution was already starting. In reality, however, they are costly and there are difficult decisions to be made about them, but they are important.
The committee does not recommend—despite its criticisms—that it does not want to see a high-speed train. It might want a different one; it might want to change it, as the recommendations suggest. I am like that: I am not against it, but when I was arguing with my noble friend Lord Adonis, in the early stages when he brought this project forward, I did not like the idea justified on 30 minutes to Birmingham. I did not think that it justified that kind of money. What I did argue was, why not connect it to the northern investment in the railway transport system? That is underfunded and being left at a disadvantage compared to the billions poured into the London system. I thought the northern part, if you linked it with what they then called HS3—though it will not be at 250 miles an hour, I suppose—which is the east-west connection, is an important part of connectivity for the cities in the north, as well as for the cities in the south.
To my mind, the northern extension is the important part. I remind the House of all the argument about the north over HS1, where northern towns were told, “Don’t worry, we’ll get you trains”. They even built the sleeper trains, then found they could not run on the southern electrification, so I had to sell them to Canada.
The north is a critical part of this. That is what I want to talk about here: how we can we get the rebalancing that the Government talk about? All that I have just heard was about rebalancing to the south, not the north, on something that is very unequal at the moment. I welcome David Higgins’ recommendations and the reassessment he made, but the way we have it at the moment is still not right. I will refer to a recommendation in the committee’s report which I think is necessary.
My concern is with delay. You need only listen to people talking about either Euston station, where it will be or the line, the route, the costs and further inquiries—all that means delay. It is already estimated to start by 2020 and arrive in the north by about 2035, though we cannot get an exact date. Nobody mentions it, just like the cost. In the north, we will be waiting 20 years for HS2 to arrive. But we can avoid that. Most of the delay will be on legislative procedures, arguments of cost, tunnelling wherever it is and all the arguments going on at the moment—and there are more from this committee. I would like HS2 to arrive at the north, at whatever stations we want, a lot earlier than that.
I suggest that one possibility we take into account is to carry on, even if—as the committee said—it is with the electrification of the Pennine link. That is an important link of east and west across the north. Everybody agrees with it: the argument is over when it will come. At the moment, if you go on a train from Leeds to Manchester, it is a disgrace. It is unsafe. You cannot even get on the train and there are no rules about how many passengers can get on it. To that extent, we need higher priority for the north.
To take some of the recommendations from the committee, its report talks about prioritisation. That is a very important point. Where I disagree partly with the committee is that its prioritisation is to start it in phase 1—the northern part of HS2—and then that will be the path. I would go further than that. Look, if you want to start it, start it in the north. You will have to wait five or six years, or more than that, before you can get the first sod out of the ground. That is what is happening. We need to do it now.
That was in my report of 2004 called The Northern Way. We started that with the hub of Manchester. Let us complete that now. Let us do the Pennine link, make it a real national one at a fraction of what is being spent on Crossrail and other connections planned at present. Let us start that investment in the north now and give the north the advantage since, as the committee points out, the greater growth and economic contribution comes from the north, for a number of good reasons. We could get the better advantages by starting this whole project in the north, by connecting the east-west link. Then, when we have finished arguing about what we want done in phase 1 and phase 2, we will wait for it. Why hold up the north from getting investment now, which will bring more jobs, more investment and more growth in the economy? That seems a northern answer to the proper question that we have at the moment.
To help the Government, I give them a suggestion of something that they might be able to do. The Government, as I said in my own reports back in the 2000s, recommended most of these things. We did some of them but you came along and cancelled them—it was called an election. Then you came up to us in the north and said, “We’re going to give you some money for the trans-Pennine link”. Blimey, within two weeks you were telling us that it would be delayed. Why was that? It was for another cost consideration, a calculation made by a network that the cost for the Great Western is no longer £450 million but will be £1.3 billion. What do you do? Do you rebalance to the north? No, you take the money away from the northern investment you promised and put it down in the south. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister goes to Yorkshire and thinks Yorkies hate each other. For God’s sake, they hate you for not carrying out what you promised. That is what you promised and that is what we do.
It makes good common sense, it is something we should do and if you really believed in helping the north to develop and in rebalancing—an important point—then do the essential thing now: start the development of the train network and the strategic investments that we want in the north. Then come along later with the Channel Tunnel—I mean HS2; I call it the Channel Tunnel—and connect it to HS1. You know what that is? It is called transport planning. It means thinking of them all together instead of starting on one and trying to justify everything else, which has now just been exposed by the committee.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, and I agree with much of what he said, not least about investment in the north and the importance of having a transport investment plan.
I was a member of the Economic Affairs Committee that undertook the HS2 inquiry, and I believe that our report asked a set of pertinent questions that deserve clear answers. The report was supported in a letter at the end of May to the Prime Minister from 35 very senior engineers, transport planners and economists in the UK, which called for a pause to,
“look again at alternative ways of tackling the problems that HS2 is supposed to address, and allow a thoroughgoing review of how best to bring our national rail system holistically into the 21st century”.
I think that they are right to ask for that review, but it should be done during the passage of a hybrid Bill.
I have been a very strong supporter of HS2 for many years, and I remain a supporter in principle because a high-speed rail link that can increase capacity of train paths, reduce journey times and improve connectivity in the UK has to be of benefit. However, I have to admit that some of my preconceptions were challenged by hearing evidence. I have concluded that if such a large sum—and it is a very large sum of public money—is to be committed, we have to be certain that it is spent in the best way to improve our rail network.
Ten years ago, I thought that HS2 would be part of a UK-wide transport infrastructure plan, but that is absent, as our very first conclusion demonstrates. I thought that HS2 would include Scotland. I thought that it would integrate places and modes of travel. I fear that those early expectations are unlikely to be met, and I find that a matter of increasing concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, mentioned the Northern Way. I was a member of the Northern Way Transport Compact when it looked at northern priorities for HS2. From the perspective of the north-east of England, I expected that HS2 would give links to London much faster than the east coast main line, and that is likely to happen. I expected that the cities and conurbations of the north, the Midlands and Scotland would be linked to each other and to London by high-speed rail, but if you look at the map in the committee’s report, you can see that, mostly, that is not the case—they will not all be interlinked, as I had hoped that they might.
I had thought that there might be high-speed links from the north, Scotland and the Midlands to Heathrow, the UK’s airport hub. There were even suggestions some years ago that passengers would check in on the train and have their baggage moved on arrival at Heathrow. We now have a stop at Old Oak Common, and there are some understandable reasons for that. However, we must be very clear about how access to Heathrow Airport can be made available to people, particularly those who do not have air links to Heathrow.
A few years ago, I thought that we would have a high-speed direct link with Eurostar at St Pancras. Well, we are not going to. I thought that there would be no negative impact on future investment on the east coast main line, most of which will not be served by high-speed rail, either the full HS2 or the classic compatible system—that is, the link between Newcastle and Edinburgh and the line south of York to London. The Secretary of State said to the committee that there would be no negative impact on future investment on the east coast main line, and I hope very much that the Minister will be able to confirm that that still remains the case.
Finally, I thought high-speed rail would integrate properly with local and regional transport services, but our committee discovered that the £50 billion cost of HS2 does not include any connectivity between HS2 stations and the local transport network and that there are no plans for how that provision will be made.
Mention has been made of whether HS2 will take investment money from other rail services. HS2 documentation suggests that a large number of towns and cities will have a worse rail service as a consequence of HS2. In the north, I mentioned Berwick, Carlisle, Durham and Lancaster as examples, but there are others. The TransPennine route has been mentioned. The Government have again said that the delay to what we termed HS3 is temporary and that it will work, but will they confirm that that remains the case and say how HS3 is going to integrate with HS2? I was very struck by the comment the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, made in July. He pointed out that HS2 will go to a station in Sheffield which is four miles away from the station to which HS3 would go.
We then have issues around Euston and whether HS2 should stop at Old Oak Common. And then we have Scotland. There may not be a business case, as High Speed Two (HS2) Limited has said, for linking Scotland fully to the HS2 system, but my view is that there is a political case for doing that.
In conclusion, I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said. It was noticeable that what his speech omitted was that most of the economic gain from HS2 will go to places with HS2 track and stations, and HS2 track stops halfway up the United Kingdom. My great fear now is that investment which might otherwise go further north and go into Scotland may be made further south. I do not think that would encourage an integrated United Kingdom, so I hope that the report and the issues that we have raised in this debate will be fully considered in the next few months before the hybrid Bill comes before your Lordships’ House.
Lord Desai (Lab)
My Lords, I come into this debate very much as an amateur. My noble friend Lord Hollick said that I should read the report and maybe speak on it. I would say immediately that I am very much for HS2 and HS3, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Prescott that delay is not a good idea. As soon as we can build HS3 or HS2, wherever we can build it, we ought to get on with it.
Cost-benefit analysis seems to be the major ground of debate in this report. In my career as an economist, I do not think I have ever seen a cost-benefit analysis where you could not say, “No, we could do a better job: we should have more and better estimates and surveys”, and so on. The way I read the report, it says, “Yes, get some better numbers”, but it does not say that we should not do this. But maybe I have misread the report. My view is that HS2 is still a good idea, and that HS3 is an even better idea, and that we need to make the decision using animal spirits rather than detailed calculation.
Let me give one example. The classic study of cost-benefit analysis for transport economics was the Foster and Beesley paper which led to the Victoria line. It was published in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society way back in 1964. It totally underestimated the complete impact of the Victoria line on the London economy. Islington would have been impossible without the Victoria line, and the prosperity of that bit of north London is very much because of it. The calculation was entirely about time saved in commuting. Here, the argument is that the time saved in commuting is not sufficient to justify the position but, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said, there are other benefits that we have to take on board. Those other benefits may also require some additional costs, but that kind of calculation does not seem to have been made or examined by anyone. It would be very important for the Government, when they give a better reply to the report than they have already given, to be able to make a much better case for the HS2 and HS3 lines based on the total benefit of constructing them, not merely on the time saved by businessmen because they will get to London x minutes faster.
What we need, not just now but for future big investment decisions, is a different slide rule—a different kind of calculation that considers the narrow costs and benefits of the particular project but then also calculates what I would call the other externalities that result from these sorts of investments. The character of large investments, most of whose good effects are larger than the narrow effects of the investment as such, is very often undercalculated. People should not forget that some of the extra business and revenue generated will come back as tax revenues for the Government, not just from the businessmen travelling but from the overall impact on property prices, businesses built, jobs created and so on. The Government need to examine this, perhaps within a new “Office of Animal Spirits”, as I will call it, which would do these sorts of calculations for large investments.
It is quite clear, when you travel in France or Germany, that since the 1970s we have not had the sufficiently large level of investment in our transport system that other countries have had. I do not know whether they went into detailed calculations and debates about cost-benefit analyses, but they made those decisions and have benefited from them. It is about time that we made some big investment decisions and implemented them as soon as possible. I hope that the Minister will tell the various Conservative MPs along the route that they should stop complaining about HS2 going through their constituencies and just enjoy the benefits that it will bring to those constituencies when it is done. The sooner that we get on with this, the better.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, and the Economic Affairs Committee on an excellent and comprehensive report. The committee rightly says that the Government have yet to make a convincing case for proceeding with HS2, and that the argument that it will increase capacity is at best unclear. The Government’s response to the committee’s report raises more questions than it answers, and I fear that the Department for Transport is guilty of using smoke and mirrors in attempting to make its case. In my view, it has utterly failed to do so.
HS2 will turn out to be the most expensive white elephant in UK history. As the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, mentioned, the cost has already risen from some £29 billion initially to £50 billion in 2011 prices, but stands at a staggering £56 billion in today’s prices. Even this costing does not include the cost of connecting up to the existing infrastructure, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, pointed out, which has not been included in the £50-odd billion figure. Obviously further expenditure will be required to link local services to HS2, so it is disingenuous to exclude it.
As the committee reports, the expected cost of construction per mile for HS2 is up to nine times higher than the cost of constructing high-speed lines in France. That is an unacceptable waste of public money. The business case has not been updated since 2013 and continues to include £8.3 billion of cuts to existing rail services. Fears that HS2 would begin to take funds away from other rail projects already look prescient—witness the recent postponement of the trans-Pennine and Midland main line electrifications. The best way to improve connectivity and boost the northern powerhouse is exactly these sorts of projects and by improving regional and intercity routes. The Government are proposing to do the opposite.
The idea that all this money for HS2 will benefit the north and rebalance the economy is a fallacy. The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, made a powerful case for direct investment in the north, but experience on the continent shows that the primary beneficiaries of this sort of line are capital cities which suck investment and jobs from the regions. The letter of the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, to the Secretary of State for Transport dated 21 July 2015 makes a number of valid points. The noble Lord rightly questions the dubious figures of the Department for Transport on overcapacity and demand on the west coast main line. As the committee report points out, such overcrowding as there is appears to be caused by commuter traffic, not by long-distance traffic. Even peak-period trains on the west coast main line, the only route to benefit from phase 1 of HS2, are half full.
The real overcrowding on the rail network, as any commuter knows, is on the lines into London from the Home Counties, the west and East Anglia. The lines into Waterloo, Victoria and Liverpool Street in particular are now full. None of HS2’s supporters today acknowledge this inconvenient fact, including the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who has been a long-term supporter of the project. London’s stations are also creaking with Paddington, Moorgate, St Pancras and Blackfriars having the highest proportion of passengers in excess of capacity. As the Evening Standard recently reported, the Department for Transport admits that services from Reading, Heathrow, Brighton and Caterham in Surrey were among the most packed nationwide. In the morning peak, 139,000 passengers are now standing compared to 120,000 a year ago. HS2 will do nothing for these hard-pressed commuters, as conditions continue to deteriorate year by year.
The current HS2 plan for Euston, to which several noble Members have referred, looks like a dog’s breakfast. Reducing the existing 18 platforms to just 11 with an estimated completion date of 2033, it will bring chaos to the area. Nationally, only 2% of rail passengers will benefit from HS2, while the rest of us taxpayers pay for it. I do not know about other noble Lords, but I already want my money back.
This debate and report are not about the environmental impact of HS2, but I remain concerned that this vanity project—I share the idea of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, who referred to the word “vanity”—will have a devastating effect on our irreplaceable environment, including unique habitats, ancient woodland and sites of special scientific interest, and on the people who live along the route. I cannot quite share the feeling of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that this is only a matter of concern for MPs whose constituencies lie along the route. Many people will be affected by this and it will have an impact on many irreplaceable areas of outstanding natural beauty including that of the Chilterns, which appears greatly at risk. Will the Minister update the House on the environmental devastation that HS2 will inflict upon this small island nation?
Finally, I cannot fail to note that Jeremy Corbyn MP has been overwhelmingly elected leader of the Labour Party. He has my best wishes for a difficult job ahead. Mr Corbyn is on record as opposing HS2. I hope that he continues to resist the vested interests pushing this pointless and costly project, whether they be the construction companies, foreign contractors or northern councils that believe that HS2 will benefit them. The national interest and the interest of rail users and environmentalists dictate that it should be rejected once and for all.
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, on his speech and on his exemplary chairing of the inquiry, on which I served. A fast train link is an exciting project. Better rail communications are vital to boost the UK’s economic growth. They are not perhaps the total solution. We also need better roads, faster IT connections and an ever-increasingly business-friendly tax and regulatory environment. However, the economic benefits of this project are very hard to pin down, and projects of the size and duration of HS2 are leaps of faith, rather than susceptible to cost-benefit analysis, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said. In fact, as the French would say, they are “grand projets”.
Our report highlights some of the issues with HS2 that need to be thought about. I do not intend to spend time talking about the route; others have dealt with that already and, in any case, it is probably too late to change the route now that so much planning has gone into it. One thing is sure, any alternative route would also have run into substantial opposition.
The first issue is: where is the best place to start building the track? Is the first priority the part of HS2 linking London to Birmingham? I should perhaps say that I am a Londoner born and bred, and therefore have a prejudice in favour of starting any project in London, but my grandparents came from Leeds—and from the slums of Leeds at that.
As the intention of HS2 is to boost the northern powerhouse, there is an argument, on which we took a lot of evidence, for starting the project with a link between the great northern cities—the so-called HS3—or even by starting by linking Scotland with England, which would have certain political benefits. During our evidence sessions, it became very clear that one of the imperatives for HS2 is to relieve the bottlenecks in the rail approaches to north London. We took a lot of evidence that suggested that one major benefit coming from HS2 will be that it will take long-distance trains from the existing rail tracks, thereby allowing many more commuter trains to be run from, say, Watford into London. I suspect that a project of this size may be an expensive way in which to provide more trains for London commuters.
That brings me to some of the most worrying evidence that we heard. The French experience with their TGV network is that the economic benefit of shorter travel times is far from clear. Where the station is in the city centre, as at Lyon, there is some boost to the economy. However, where the station is outside the city, as at Avignon, there is very little benefit. This should make us question whether the proposed stations on the HS2 line north of Birmingham are always in the right places. In practice, the TGV network seems to have benefited Paris more than the connected cities, and the planners for HS2 need to decide how to avoid this trap. If the journey time from Birmingham to London is significantly reduced, how do we avoid a large increase in the number of commuters travelling from Birmingham to London on a daily basis? At present, the only planning for that seems to be to delay the development of Euston station so that no commuter would want to use it. We will need some serious plans to avoid Birmingham becoming another dormitory town for London.
However, this vast infrastructure project is a good thing, even if it is perhaps in the wrong place, may have unforeseen consequences and may benefit London more than the rest of the country. But it will have major benefits if one other condition is met. All the experience of building fast rail networks lies in France, Spain and China. There needs to be a plan to ensure that British firms can develop, via HS2, that building expertise in high-speed rail construction to enable them to compete in the global market for global infrastructure projects. Then, perhaps, we will see major benefits from this vast expenditure.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, like others, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hollick, his colleagues and officials who have produced a truly outstanding report. The 16 questions posed by them in chapter 9 are those that must receive satisfactory answers before this project goes ahead. I wish I could say that the Government’s written response either answers those questions or shows that the concerns raised have been carefully considered and addressed—but, sadly, I cannot do so. Indeed, I have to express considerable sympathy for the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who has been provided with very threadbare defence against the valid criticisms of the committee in a slight, 30-page response from the Government. It is very long, not on information or answers, but with the usual clichés: “clear and robust”, “step change in capacity”, “convincing” and “compelling”. But it does not answer the questions that were raised about the problems.
That report is far from a lone voice; there have been many others. Most recently, I saw a letter, which may have been the one already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that was sent to the Prime Minister on 27 May by 15 of this country’s most senior engineers, transport planners and transport economists, led by emeritus professor James Croll. Those experts expressed support for this report and asked for an urgent review of the project. The signatories included the former chief economist of the Department for Transport, Sir Christopher Foster, and six of the United Kingdom’s leading professors in the fields of civil engineering, transport studies and transport economics. They, like the report, question the calculations that are still being relied on in relation to capacity. Despite the very considerable expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and my noble friend Lord Adonis, I doubt that those calculations can command the respect or confidence that they place in them. Those experts also expressed the view that, far from furthering northern regeneration, which all of us strongly support, HS2 is far more likely to favour the south, as others have said.
Two things have happened this summer since this report was published that should prompt the Government to institute an independent review. The first has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Prescott: the cancellation of Network Rail’s upgrades, promised during the general election. The axing or delay of major projects that would have meant improvements to the Midland main line from London to Sheffield and the trans-Pennine route, especially from Manchester to Leeds, through lack of money shows that our rail network, especially in the north, is crying out for investment, which is not available and will not be forthcoming while this project proceeds. It could and should be provided.
Secondly, and of very great significance—again, others have already mentioned them—are the statistics published this week for rail overcrowding. From them, it is clear that the serious problems currently on our network are with commuter services, most particularly but not exclusively in London—and the problems are not on the London-to-Birmingham line. The figure has already been given: 139,000 passengers are standing on trains on arrival into London at morning peak time. A quarter of all those trains are overcapacity, with 59% having passengers standing. Those passengers are among the people who will have to pay for HS2 if it goes ahead, and most of them will receive absolutely no benefit.
Worse still, HS2 would worsen their problems. I hear what others say, but I read the debate that took place yesterday in another place. I refer those who say that the commuter position will be improved to yesterday’s Hansard, col. 997. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Mr Robert Goodwill, accepted that at Euston there would be a reduction in platforms for existing trains from 18 to 11, together with a reduction in the approach tracks for the existing trains. How can it be right to tell passengers currently struggling on what is in places an inadequate and failing rail network that, at a very minimum—we have heard very much higher figures mentioned—£31 billion of their money is to be spent to provide a small number of business travellers with a slightly quicker way to Birmingham and in the hope that, contrary to experience in some other places, there will be development away from the capital and not more commuters coming in?
I am sure that this House will take note of this excellent report. I hope that the Government will too.
On an earlier occasion when we debated this subject, we were told by my noble friend Lord Mandelson the history of how this proposal came to be adopted. It appeared to be, as he himself put it frankly and “with regret”, partly for electoral reasons and to leave a legacy. It has become a runaway train, but there is still time to put some brakes on and have a proper look at what we are proposing to do. That was the recommendation of the experts. It need not delay the parliamentary process. It might be better if it did, but it could take place at the same time. We must have an independent look at what is going on and we must have the answers to the questions posed in this report.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank (LD)
My Lords, I was unaware of the Government’s response to the Economic Affairs Committee report of 25 March until this debate appeared on the Lords’ daily business paper. As an outsider and not a member of the committee, I find the response disappointing and dismissive. I have said on a previous occasion in the House that I am agnostic about the merits of HS2, as currently planned, and many agnostics want to believe. Alas, the response does not help towards the necessary faith in what seemed a glamorous but—as it has turned out to be—an inadequately considered project.
The report and the response should be seen in the context of the wider discussion about the railways. I am confused by the Government’s intentions. On 7 June, they initiated a debate in the House called, “North of England: Transport”. Many noble Lords spoke with enthusiasm of Hull, Newcastle, Derby, Leeds, Merseyside, Cumbria and elsewhere and about the prospect of better connectivity and improving the infrastructure. As we know, one of the important matters was the trans-Pennine electrification. In the report, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, struck an optimistic note saying,
“before you bring any strategy together, you need to have the vision”.
Later he said that electrification was a priority and,
“we will seek to move forward on that at the earliest opportunity”.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, wound up by quoting the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, that it was,
“all right to talk but it is time to get on with it”.—[Official Report, 17/6/15; col. 1210-15.]
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, made a positive and upbeat speech. That was on 17 June in this House.
But eight days later, on 25 June in the House of Commons, the Secretary of State for Transport, Patrick McLoughlin, made a Statement on the publication of the annual report of Network Rail. Some things were working well, but he did not pretend that everything was perfect because it was not. Then followed a damning critique of Network Rail in which the chairman was sacked and which ensured that some of the executive directors would receive no bonus. The Secretary of State set out a review of priorities. On the Midland main line there could be “speed improvement”, but electrification would be “paused”, as was mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Hollick. There would also be a pause in the current work on the trans-Pennine route. It was a deeply worrying Statement about the railways, and very different in mood and style from the buoyant speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, a few days earlier.
I have a concern and a question. The annual report that the Secretary of State referred to was the first annual report of Network Rail since it was reclassified as a public body in September 2014. But the unsatisfactory output of the organisation was not a sudden event. Since then, the Secretary of State tells us that the present chief executive Mark Carne has had to review the organisation’s structure, performance and accountability and has made changes. However, the chief executive of Network Rail from February 2011 to April 2014 was Sir David Higgins, who is now the chair of HS2. My question is this: do the Government still have unqualified confidence in Sir David’s ability to handle the current problems, including the economics of HS2, and successfully carry forward the project on time and within price? I would be grateful for a ministerial answer today.
I have a further anxiety about the railways. A letter dated 6 August from the Office of Rail Regulation was copied to the Secretary of State for Transport covering a period of six months to 31 March. It identifies and lists areas of weakness, including inadequate governance of projects, inconsistent consideration of safety issues and low productivity. It also states that in some areas, the quality of data that Network Rail relies on to plan and manage its works on Britain’s railways is not acceptable. In summary, the letter states, “We consider that the wide range of identified weaknesses indicate that NR’s project development and delivery weaknesses are systematic rather than the result of individual projects failing or adverse circumstances”. While this letter refers to Network Rail, how can we be confident about the prospect of it handling HS2?
The introduction for the government response to the Economic Affairs Committee report is unyielding. There is the usual hyperbole that is familiar in the growing literature of HS2, while in contrast there is the hard-headed Statement made by the Secretary of State on 25 June. I would welcome the authors of further HS2 documents showing some openness and fair-mindedness rather than rejecting the views of those who remain unhappily sceptical about a huge and complex project.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, this is to some extent a pretty depressing debate. I did not find the Economic Affairs Committee report to be particularly enlightening, and indeed having listened to the contributions of my noble friends Lord Hollick and Lady Blackstone, I find myself even less enlightened as to why they have come to their conclusions.
Capacity on our railways is not the simplistic concept that the committee appears to believe. The Institution of Railway Operators defines network capacity as:
“The number of trains that can be incorporated into a timetable that is conflict-free, commercially attractive, compliant with regulatory requirements, and can be operated within the laid-down performance targets in the face of prevailing levels of Primary Delay”.
In his opening speech, my noble friend Lord Hollick talked about improving the existing railway as though that would be a solution to the overcrowding that, bizarrely, he appears to think happens only on a Friday afternoon—presumably during the summer. Yet all the evidence shows that, with an increase in traffic of 59% on the west coast main line over the past decade, the existing problems of overcrowding are only going to get worse.
Of course, we are not talking about just passenger-train overcrowding. If we accept the definition of line capacity as laid down by the Institution of Railway Operators, we have to take into account more than just the number of commuter trains. According to the report, commuters are simply dismissed—we should just put up the fares, as we do on aircraft, when things are particularly busy. My noble friend Lord Hollick has the security of sitting, as I do, in the upper House, but I would have thought that knocking on doors with that solution, particularly in commuter areas, would not be too sensible. However, neither he nor I have to do that—in his case, I do not think he ever has—but let me assure him that it is no easy task to convince people that what you are doing is for the public good.
There have been a number of irrelevancies introduced into the debate, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, who appeared to read every word of what he had to say. He talked about the Midland main line and the trans-Pennine route to a certain extent, as did my noble friend Lord Prescott. They appear to believe that the Economic Affairs Committee report on HS2, indeed the whole construction of HS2, is menacing other parts of the railway system. There was a simple reason, of course, for the electrification teams being switched from the Midland main line and trans-Pennine routes, and from the Manchester to Scotland route, to the Great Western. It was that the Government have been unwise enough to sign a deal with Hitachi for a number of IEP trains, which have to be paid for from the moment of delivery. Of course, electric trains without electric wires are a bit of a drain on the taxpayer, which is why these electrification schemes have been paused. That pause has nothing at all to do with HS2.
Indeed, although the electrification of those schemes has been “paused”, to use the Government’s word, we should not make the mistake of thinking that electrification —the stringing up of wires—is the be-all and end-all of modernising the railway. The fact is the infrastructure on the Midland main line and elsewhere is still being improved prior to electrification, as it should be. Wiring up the existing route is no way to speed up trains, whether or not we have electrification.
Returning to what seems to me the central premise of the committee’s report, I think that my noble friend Lady Blackstone suggested that we need to improve the existing infrastructure and use alternative routes. We were unwise enough as a nation—let us take London to Manchester, for example—to close the alternative routes some years ago under successive Governments, so there is no alternative Midland main line: it finishes at Matlock instead of heading into Manchester. There is no alternative route on the former Great Central, the last main line to be opened in the United Kingdom. That was closed in the 1960s. I would be grateful if my noble friend could tell me what these alternatives are.
The fallacy that it is possible to reduce overcrowding by removing a few first-class coaches is just that. Indeed, Virgin Trains is doing that now on its Pendolinos. What contribution will that make in the long term? It might help reduce overcrowding in the next couple of years, but at the rate of increase of passenger carrying on the west coast main line. It is very much a stop-gap solution.
My noble friend Lady Mallalieu talked about commuters. If they are in the south of England, our hearts bleed for commuters, but if they are on the west coast main line, they are to be dismissed and should pay more, according to the IEA report. Network Rail, however, is already doing a great deal to combat the overcrowding in the south of England. The central core of what was Network Southeast is being improved and resignalled at the present time. London Bridge is being completely redesigned—you cannot do that without causing a few raised eyebrows and some complaints, but that is what is happening.
None of these irrelevancies has anything to with HS2. The fact is that the west coast main line is overcrowded with trains. I was bemused that the committee prays in aid Professor Glaister—he is a man who likes building roads, incidentally, although that is not necessarily to his detriment. On the Department for Transport’s own figures, only 1.2 passengers are found in each motor car, yet we do not build motorways on the basis of the number of passengers. We build motorways on the basis of congestion caused by those 1.2 drivers and occupants, which the department says is the average occupancy of a motor car. I think, therefore, you can put Professor Glaister’s views to one side. He is no friend of the railway system. I have no doubt that he will come up with the conclusion that he wanted in the first place.
There is a problem, of course, about HS3. My noble friend Lord Prescott wants to see it go ahead; I want to know where it is going. So far it is a sentiment expressed during the election campaign. Is it between Manchester and Leeds? Is it between Liverpool and Manchester? Is it between Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds? If it is all those—and Hull as well, as I had better put that in for my noble friend’s sake—which of the existing routes is going to form part of it, or is it going to be a completely new route? Are we to reopen the Woodhead Tunnel, which was closed in 1970? We do not know. All we have is a slogan from the Government on HS3 and the northern powerhouse. At the moment it is a powerhouse where the power has been switched off.
I shall conclude because of the time factor. However, my advice to my noble friend Lord Hollick and his colleagues is, “Back to the abacus”.
Lord Rowe-Beddoe (CB)
My Lords, I also had the pleasure of serving on this committee under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hollick. This inquiry started before the Summer Recess last year. Our report and recommendations were published in March and the Government’s response was received in July. I remind noble Lords of this timeline, for, despite a general election, it seems somewhat unsatisfactory to deal with a subject costing multiple billions of pounds in such a way. I misquote deliberately the bard of Stratford-upon-Avon: it moveth with all undue haste. My concern is that the Government’s response, which has been alluded to by some noble Lords, is very much, “Here is your answer; what is your question?”.
Remember what the press release accompanying our report said. The headline was:
“The Government has yet to make a convincing case for a £50 billion investment in HS2”.
Have they made a convincing case in their response, or have they adjusted the facts to support the political commitment? To progress such a project, forensic examination must take place and be given priority in identifying areas of substantial cost reductions, which I assume that Sir David Higgins and his team are undertaking. We are all only too familiar with that well-known phrase “cost overruns”. It covers so much in everything that we seem to do. An article written by Daniel Albalate and Germà Bel, two professors at the University of Barcelona, who were also two of our witnesses, analysed high-speed rail in five countries. In that article they gave us a meaningful warning. The fixed costs of high-speed rail investment are huge. Cost overruns are notoriously high.
In the context of cost, I also bring to your Lordships’ attention some evidence given to us in March this year by a former Permanent Secretary, Sir Tim Lankester, who found it surprising that the department’s accounting officer had,
“so far not insisted on a formal direction from his minister before authorising … expenditure on the project, as he is required to do under Treasury rules if the value for money test fails to be met”.
Will the Minister inform the House of the current situation in that regard?
Despite much expert advice from many quarters supporting our argument for a more convincing case to be made, the juggernaut moves on. In a letter written to the Prime Minister at the end of May this year, which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, 34 prominent UK experts—to correct the noble Baroness—including senior engineers, transport planners and economists, under the lead of Professor James Kroll of University College London, called for a pause. It has been suggested that that could happen at the time of the hybrid Bill. It would be a pause to look again at the role of HS2.
The issues are confusing. Do we want to get to Birmingham quicker? Do we want to have a northern powerhouse and a connection at the top end, which seems to me the obvious choice? As the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, said, we could start on that now. Or is it a question of extra rail network capacity, as has recently been mentioned? Then there are the environmental and economic justifications. However, there certainly does not appear to have been a pause. If there is, it is a very silent one.
As regards the Government’s response to our report, the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, wrote to the Secretary of State on 21 July and drew to the latter’s attention 10 clear unanswered questions. The answers from the department and the Secretary of State arrived at the beginning of September. The department’s answers to the 10 questions were contained in one paragraph, which states, “considering that the Government’s position on these matters is well established”. Basically, that is how those 10 questions were answered. It smacks again of the adage: “Here is your answer. What is your question?”.
Among those 10 questions was a request to estimate the overall reduction of cost to HS2 of terminating the line at Old Oak Common. I am sure that other noble Lords will talk about that as I note the time, but it must be done. We asked about the necessary station redesign, how much it would cost and what would be the effect on the cost-benefit analysis. We also asked whether the Government could reduce the cost through design change to accommodate a lower maximum speed. Why do we have to travel as fast as this thing is supposed to travel when high-speed trains travel at a lower speed everywhere else in Europe? Such a change would clearly save money.
In conclusion, we need greatly improved transport infrastructure. I believe that we can satisfy the northern powerhouse objectives but we must look at lesser speeds and longer trains. Pricing for passengers is also very important. Rail freight has not as yet been mentioned. It is the poor relation of the whole exercise.
Lord Mitchell (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Hollick for introducing this debate and for chairing the committee which produced the report. Its conclusions are very brave and stand in opposition to the stated policies of most political parties. Having said that, I am not sure where my own party stands on this issue, but no doubt that will emerge in the mists of time.
I take a slightly different view on this. I want to look at some of the assumptions that have been made about the revenues on this project: not just where they will be in 10, 15 or 20 years but where they will be over the next 80 years, because that is the length of the analysis that has been done on this project.
When Eurostar opened in 1994, I was on my way to Paris within weeks. When HS1 opened in 2007, I hotfooted it to the stunning new St Pancras station, happy at last not to endure the embarrassment of trundling through south-east London and Kent prior to whizzing through France. I marvelled at the French TGVs and am totally in awe of the high-speed train from Madrid to Seville. I love high-speed trains. Therefore, noble Lords would have thought that I would be full of anticipation and jumping up and down waiting for HS2 to arrive. Well, 20 years from now I will be 92. God willing, I shall be on that train and, God willing, I shall be able to find Euston station.
But I am not. I am against the project not for the reasons set out in the report before us, but because no account has been taken of what the world may look like in 2035, 2065, or indeed 2095. I look at HS2 and all I see is a £50 billion project—at least, I thought it was £50 billion until this afternoon. I now hear that it is £56 billion, and a noble Lord on the other Benches talked in terms of £80 billion. Some £10 billion here and £10 billion there is serious money. Anyhow, I see this project as a potential white elephant.
I see 20th-century technology for a 21st-century world. I see a project that is based on the assumption that the world will stand still, when the only thing that we know for certain is that disruptive technologies will continue to change the way we work, socialise and play. I live in the world of technology. I see constant miniaturisation, processing speeds that double every two years, industries being destroyed and new ones being created. The music industry, movies, taxis, books, manufacturing processes, medicine and television have all been subject to massive disruption. So why not rail travel?
Look at where the research and development is going. Companies such as Google and Apple are committing billions to the design of driverless cars. These boys and girls do not mess about: they will get there. What will be the implications of driverless cars for all forms of rail travel? I do not know, but maybe we should factor it in.
If it were my decision I would instead commit to another form of communication that is much more appropriate to the 21st century: blisteringly fast broadband connection throughout the country, in both rural and urban areas, offices and homes. It would be just like electricity: everyone connected, and connected fast. If we had that, we would be able to communicate with each other in an entirely different way: not over railway lines, but over fibre-optic lines, not at 250 miles per hour but at 180,000 miles per second.
We already communicate with each other using Skype and FaceTime. These are still hesitant, but good enough. Video conferencing is used by large organisations. It is very expensive and you have to go into a dedicated room, but it is improving quickly and universal fast broadband will hasten it along. I have been criticised for this before, but I am a big advocate of holograms. I believe that with fast broadband we would be able to see people materialise in front of us on devices yet to be invented. This is not science fiction. It will happen. When it does, who would want to get up early in the morning, get to a station, get on any train—fast or slow—struggle for taxis, buses and tube trains at the other end, and repeat the exercise to get home late at night? Who would do that when the option is to have the same meeting at home or in one’s own office?
When the HS2 debate started it was all about speed. When that failed to convince, it was all about capacity: passenger numbers that will continue to increase. But will they? For a time they will, but as the internet gets more powerful I am certain that rail travel will fall out of fashion and the digital alternatives will be chosen. If this happens, the Excel spreadsheets so beloved of those who support this project will begin to look pretty thin.
I make one final point. HS2’s supporters portray it as a magical solution that will bring London and the north together: an accelerator of the northern powerhouse. As my noble friend Lord Prescott said, let us get on with HS3: that is where fast rail speeds really could count. Manchester to London in half the time? I will avoid cheap shots about waiting for taxis at Euston or Piccadilly, or traffic jams on the Euston Road. But I will say this: instead of selling the virtues of Manchester being better connected with London, how about getting Manchester better connected digitally with Shanghai or Rio—or indeed even Blackburn?
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, in the remarks he has just made. We cannot possibly know what the world will look like in the years ahead.
I am not in favour of HS2. It has been called a vanity project. I am not sure that those who thought up the scheme are vain, but they are misguided, and in terms of our national transport network they have got their priorities very wrong. Some of our greatest engineering achievements were, at their inception, seen as overambitious and dauntingly difficult but turned out when completed to have been far-sighted and invaluable. Thomas Telford’s famous suspension bridge over the Menai Straits meant that the people of the island of Anglesey no longer had to row against the turbulent tides to reach the mainland and wait for a very low tide to urge their cattle to swim across to market.
Bazalgette’s sewers saved Londoners not just from a terrible stench in high summer but from the spreading of disease. London’s Tube system fulfilled the need for its citizens to move around the city and has been copied all over the world. Our motorway system, the Channel Tunnel and even Crossrail can be seen as necessary projects and our ports, airports and canals, with their breath-taking aqueducts, were all built to satisfy a need and, in their own way, have stood the test of time.
Where all those mighty projects differ from HS2 is that they were conceived, designed and built to satisfy an obvious and acknowledged need—a serious problem demanding a solution. HS2 has been dreamt up simply on the assumption that there is a pressing need for passengers to travel at speeds of up to 250 miles per hour, and a need to improve capacity, which is seriously disputed, at a cost of £50 billion. History has acknowledged and acclaimed the foresight and ingenuity of the men and women who pioneered the projects I mentioned, as well as recognising their intrinsic value. History will not be kind to those who, if it is pursued, push through this silly scheme. Who really wants to travel at 250 miles per hour over such relatively short distances? It is unnecessary and ridiculously expensive. The time saved is not worth all the cost and upheaval. The money would be much better spent on improving communications in the north, as has been mentioned repeatedly, or on improving stations and infrastructure generally.
Your Lordships may gather from these remarks that HS2 does not have my wholehearted approval, but my main reason for speaking today is to highlight the damage the scheme may do to our environment and to the countryside through which it will be driven. The countryside—trees, ancient woodland and areas of outstanding natural beauty—gets no mention in this report, yet it is hugely implicated in the economics of HS2. If HS2 does not proceed, our countryside is safe. If it goes ahead, it is in serious danger and, if we care, the cost of protecting it will be well worth while.
Perhaps I may deal, albeit briefly, with just one section of the proposed line: that through the Chilterns. The proposed route of HS2 bisects the county of Buckinghamshire diagonally across its length for 60 kilometres, from south-east to north-west, which is about one-third of the total route between London and Birmingham. Buckinghamshire is the county most adversely affected by HS2 and the route crosses under and over the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty. It severs irreplaceable ancient woodland, dissects a nationally important historic landscape, detaches heritage assets from their rural setting and disrupts intact medieval landscapes and areas of great biodiversity and value. HS2 has no tangible benefits for the people of Buckinghamshire.
A feasibility study by Peter Brett Associates of an alternative tunnelling option under the Chilterns has been commissioned by a number of the local authorities affected. Its findings were presented to the House of Commons Select Committee on 13 July this year by a team led by Mr Ray Payne. The main conclusion of the study is that a long tunnel for the transit of the Chilterns by HS2 is technically feasible and would protect the designated landscape of the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty and the green belt, where appropriate. It would mean that no houses would have to be demolished and that there would be no landfilling of surplus soil, minimal disturbance of the area of outstanding natural beauty and minimal impact on communities, businesses and residents. The extra cost of construction is estimated at £480 million, which in a budget of £50 billion—and given the huge advantages it brings—must be acceptable. In fact I understand that an alternative long-tunnel proposal, similar to the Chilterns long tunnel, has been proposed more recently. It is referred to by HS2 Ltd as T3i, follows the same route as the Government’s scheme and has been priced by HS2 Ltd at an extra £350 million. For the reasons that I have set out, if we must have HS2 then the solution to the Chilterns problem is a long tunnel.
At all levels of government, we constantly proclaim our affection for the environment, our appreciation of all it does and our determination to protect it. Here, on the grandest platform of development possible, we have the chance to prove that we really care, or to admit that those are just so many hollow words. If this scheme deserves to be carried out, it deserves to be carried out as sympathetically as possible to the countryside through which it will run and to the people whose lives will be affected by it.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, having heard my noble friend Lord Hollick criticise the Department for Transport for not listening carefully to some of the committee’s views, I am sorry that he is not here to listen to some of the analysis of his own report from Members of this House.
We seem to be moving into a world of what is now called spatial economics when it comes to infrastructure investment. Those who say that this will definitely favour centralisation in London must think that everybody born in Manchester, like me, is stupid. The people in the north are overwhelmingly in favour of this project, and they are not all stupid. If we are to have two clusters—the new spatial economics is called cluster economics—there is the vision of a big cluster in the north and a big cluster in the south. I remind noble Lords that although London is a big place and you can take the wider number of 10 million or 15 million people, it is no bigger than the cluster in the north. You can play around with geography, but south and north are capable of forming a sort of dumbbell of two great clusters. That makes sense.
It also makes sense to accept the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Prescott. There was indeed a strange sequence of events whereby, having established that the northern powerhouse was the great idea, suddenly, trans-Pennine electrification was delayed. Perhaps the Minister can explain. There might be a proper argument about the link-up with the north of HS2 and the electrification of which trans-Pennine route—it may be a new project—is necessary as part of HS3, but I should like to hear the rationale set out side by side.
Many of us who were keen on the northern powerhouse when no one else was thinking about it are a bit suspicious of those who suddenly want to damn HS2 on the basis that they prefer HS3. I do not find that very convincing. There is within what I call the northern cluster, broadly defined, a huge improvement across what one might call the clusteral reality—including from Birmingham, Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield—which takes a very long time at the moment, well over halving the time into Yorkshire, Lancashire and across the top.
Apropos of what my noble friend Lord Desai said about cost-benefit analysis, there are different ways of looking at it. I did a bit of that in my first job after university. I was doing postgraduate work on transport economics at the same time as jobs for the World Bank on it. Cost-benefit analysis is very difficult. One reason is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, did not acknowledge when she said that the expenditure should be compared with current expenditure on education or whatever. No self-respecting economist would see it that way.
Let me put myself in the position of a Victorian engineer or public servant in 1850. Did we realise that we were building a railway for 200 years—not just for 1950 but for 2050 the way it is going? The west coast main line will be there for 200 years. We all know that discounted cash flow and rates of return over those periods of time are very hard to combine with what one spends on the current year’s public expenditure. However, the Victorians did not delay and leave to the next generation all those great expenditures on sewers and the rest of it. We should take a broader view when we look ahead over these vast periods. We should also take a broader view, in that connection, on how fast the trains would go. Somebody said, “Why should we go faster than everybody else?”. Well, why not? Why should we say that in 20 or 50 years we should be locked into a route that will determine the possibilities for speed, for a start, and save some money now with 300 kph instead of 400? I do not see why we should always be the back-marker.
My other major point is that the committee has not been very fair in its analysis of the train paths issue. You have to compare apples with apples here. It is not just a question of whether at some times of the day there is spare capacity. You are freeing up train paths for a number of reasons, one of which—freight—I am sure my noble friend Lord Berkeley will comment on in a second. We need more freight paths. This leads to the environmental question. I am sure that the Amersham Action Group would criticise a motorway going through Amersham even more vociferously. It should recommend that more freight be allowed paths up the country, rather than going by road. We should say that, although there is no total proof of these things, this is a project in which many of us who have a little bit of experience in these matters will put our faith—to use the words of the right reverend Prelate—and that we have crossed the Rubicon now. We should really say, “Full steam ahead”.
The Earl of Glasgow (LD)
My Lords, I find the report of the Economic Affairs Committee on High Speed 2 a rather negative and depressing one. It certainly does not express much enthusiasm for this very exciting project. It seems to be endlessly demanding more hard proof that the enterprise really will bring more prosperity to the north of England; that it really will free up more capacity for the overcrowded existing network; that the business world will really benefit from faster communications between London, the Midlands and the North; and that ordinary people will be able to afford it. There is the implication that the £50 billion that HS2 is expected to cost might well be better spent on other things. It seems to me a very short-sighted report by a committee that cannot imagine what our railway system needs to be like in 2030 or beyond.
Of course it is expensive: it is the first new railway line to be built in Britain for more than 100 years, if you do not count HS1. Initially, anyway, there will be more than 300 miles of track. The Economic Affairs Committee seems to be engaged in some sort of cost-cutting exercise, an assessment of value for money. It seems to me that in this case, the cost is really of secondary consideration. The main consideration is: do we need High Speed 2? If, as I believe, we do, the Government are necessarily going to have to find the money to pay for it.
Most of us now accept that an improved railway network is the most effective and sensible answer to our future transport challenges. In order to improve the working capacity of our existing network, we need a brand new north-south railway line. If we are going to invest in a new railway line, it is only sensible to build a modern high-speed one. Too much emphasis has been put on the high-speed element, although taking half an hour or more off a 200-mile journey is a considerable benefit to all classes of passengers. No, of course we need High Speed 2. It is far from a vanity project, as some of our opponents try to make out. It is an absolute necessity if we want to create an effective and efficient railway service in Britain in future. Besides, the train is—potentially anyway—by far the most civilised way to travel.
As your Lordships’ will have gathered by now, I am tremendously excited by this prospect of HS2, though I will probably be dead by the time it is completed. We should also be planning HS3, the proposed east-west railway through the Pennines that will join up the major northern towns and help to create this much-vaunted northern powerhouse. I go along very much with the hopes of the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, for the north. I would like to see plans for HS2 continue north to Scotland, as my noble friend Lord Shipley said. Obviously, I have to declare an interest there. Then there needs to be this direct link joining HS2 with HS1—apparently a very expensive mile of track in London that the Government are keeping on hold for the moment. Why should not the Manchester businessman or Yorkshire holidaymaker travel directly to Paris without changing trains, as Londoners can do now?
As again my noble friend Lord Shipley touched on, one concern of the Economic Affairs Committee concerns me, too. It has always been my understanding that while money is spent building HS2, money is also being spent on upgrading and improving the existing network and connecting some of the existing track with HS2 at appropriate places. The report questions whether the £50 billion budgeted for HS2 would not be better spent upgrading our existing lines. I always assumed that this was not an either/or situation; that the Government had budgeted for both and that HS2 was an integral part of the plan to improve the whole railway network in Britain, making the railways the top priority for future transport policy. If HS2 is just a standalone one-off, then maybe it could be classed as a vanity project. I need the Minister’s assurance that that is not the case and that the existing network will be properly financed at the same time, and in particular that the connection between the existing network and HS2 will be made.
As long as I have that assurance, I am 100% behind HS2. However, I am a bit apprehensive of the Economic Affairs Committee’s recommended delays and the powerful pressure groups bent on stopping HS2 in its tracks—if that is the right word. I would also like assurance that the Government will keep their nerve and go ahead with HS2 as soon as they possibly can.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, I start by adding my thanks to our chairman on the committee, my noble friend Lord Hollick, for his excellent presentation of the report. Just to remind everybody, we are the Economic Affairs Committee and focused on the economics of HS2, asking searching questions to which we still await some convincing answers and perhaps feeling that, so far, the replies we have had are rather perfunctory and verging on the impatient with what seems to be regarded as nit-picking by the Department for Transport. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will be able to correct that impression of the Government’s approach a bit later on.
I support HS2, but not because I am convinced particularly by the economics of the moment or the different studies that have been done. HS2 is not just an economic matter. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, put that very well earlier. It is as much about politics as economics. If you go to France and on the TGV system, as many noble Lords will have, you would not call that a vanity project or just for the glory of having a high-speed train. It is well used. It was expensive in what it cost the country but it is a huge national asset. You can go to Germany and use the ICE network developed there. What was the reason for that? It was after the fall of the Wall and the need to reunify the country. As much as anything else, Germany needed new sinews of transport to pull the country together and give it some sense of unity. Spain has problems as severe as ours and perhaps worse in maintaining its integrity, yet the high-speed train system there is as much about holding the country together and bringing parts closer together as about economics.
Although economics are important, they are not the only thing. In this country, some of the arguments could have been avoided if this had been put in a national context: a national network of high-speed trains, extending to Scotland and including the north-east of England, and perhaps with an emphasis put on those parts of the country that we want to develop more quickly than has been the case so far. That certainly includes the north of England. At the moment, our plan for HS2 ends half way up Britain and seems to exclude significant parts of the north and west, and Scotland and Wales. I am one of those who thinks we should put HS2 in a broader context than it is at the moment.
Also, it is important that we make a start somewhere. HS2 has going for it the fact that it has private money behind it, not least because of the opportunities for property development in the areas of Euston and Old Oak Common. These seem to be the rich plums that will attract private money, rather than what happens anywhere else. To some extent, that will help fund the rest of the railway.
As my noble friend Lord Prescott said, it is important to bear in mind all the time the differential spend on infrastructure in London compared to elsewhere in the country. That differential is growing and certainly needs correction. A high-speed line across the Pennines would be one way to help redress that and bring together cities that are geographically close together but culturally rather far apart. In a debate on productivity last week, we heard from the other side somebody explaining this. They have a business with premises in Warrington and Irlam, which is sort of west Salford—all of 12 miles apart. Yet they said how difficult it was to get people to move across, compared to the south-east of England where people think very little of commuting 30, 40 or more miles to their workplace. The value of better communications in the north of England—no doubt people can quote me other parts of the country that they know best—is very important.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley can see further ahead than me. My horizons do not get much further than two-hour traffic jams on the M6 trying to get round Stoke and other places. The idea that on a crowded island such as ours we have not invested in any major new railway since before 1900 seems crazy. The environmental argument that has been made is surely in favour of the train over the plane or new motorway, much as though they will probably be necessary unless my noble friend Lord Berkeley is right and we find alternative means of transportation and communication.
No one doubts that HS1 is a national asset. It has not lived up to all the dire forecasts, let us be clear about that. HS2 can be the same, especially if on the back of it we can rebuild a British railway engineering industry that has become very small compared to what is necessary. Invest in engineering, invest in Britain and invest in high-speed rail. That seems to be the way forward.
Lord Turnbull (CB)
My Lords, I joined the Economic Affairs Committee only in this Session, so I can claim no credit for its report, although I applaud the very searching questions that it has put to the Government.
My starting point is that, in principle, I support the construction of dedicated high-speed lines between our major cities. I do not believe that we can achieve a satisfactory rail infrastructure by the existing policy of patch and mend and incremental improvements. The historical context is that 60 years ago we recognised in the UK that there were different kinds of road traffic. Our existing trunk roads mixed up people wanting to travel long distances at high speeds with local journeys and commuters. So we started to build a motorway network which separated the two. Sixty years later, we need to do the same for the rail network. This will never function efficiently while intercity, commuter, cross-country and freight traffic are all mixed up.
Although I start from a positive presumption, I recognise that the design and cost of what we build has to be carefully examined and justified. Here the committee has raised some valid doubts. I certainly endorse the doubts about the speed of 400 kph, but let me concentrate on a different one. The current plan is to rebuild Euston to be both the London terminus of HS2 and of the existing west coast main line services. We have seen in the last few days that that is going to be much more expensive than previously thought, will take many years, and cause great disruption. One submission to the committee estimated that the cost of the final tunnel and the rebuilding of Euston could be about one-quarter of the total construction cost. The committee has asked, but received no satisfactory answer, how much would be saved by making Old Oak Common the terminus.
The argument that we got from the Transport Secretary last week was that the terminus must be right in the centre of London, but that is based on a simple misconception. Most journeys do not start or end at the terminus; transport planning must work from door to door, not just station to station. So the key requirement is not where the terminus is located but how well it connects to the rest of the London network. In this respect, Old Oak Common will be much better placed than Euston as, unlike Euston, it will be served by Crossrail. It will be a matter of minutes beyond Paddington. It will also, unlike Euston, be connected to Heathrow. I believe, therefore, that we should look seriously at Old Oak Common, which will reduce the cost of rebuilding Euston and save massive expenditure on about 7.5 kilometres of tunnel, which, ironically, will serve only about 60% of the arrivals in London, the rest having got off at Old Oak Common.
Much of the argument of the benefits of HS2 has been around benefits of time saved. The Government’s own analysis puts such benefits at two-thirds of the total. I find this implausible and, like the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I believe that the methodology that produced this result is seriously flawed. Professor Venables, in his evidence, argued that user benefits in time saving, and improvement of productivity were adequately captured, but what he called land-use change or investment and employment effects were not. The result is that current methodology gives too much weight to time saving and not enough to the power of railways to reshape economic geography by opening up opportunities for development, housing and employment. Favouring time over development potential is also skewing the location of stations, as with Sheffield. How much time people save is only part of the story. For example, the impact of the Metropolitan Line, which fundamentally reshaped the geography of London, was not just due to speeding up the journey of the residents of Amersham to London; it was the opportunity to do things that were not being done before, paving the way for the 1930s housing boom which was opened up in north-west London.
In paragraph 247, the committee cautioned that transport infrastructure did not always lead to development. The experience of London points strongly in the opposite direction, with the M25, the Limehouse link and the Jubilee Line extension, which opened up Docklands, and HS1, which opened up the Stratford area and was crucial in changing the perception of the IOC about access to the Olympic park. Without that line, our bid would not have succeeded. That process is still going on—for example, in the land around King’s Cross Crossrail, and Crossrail is revitalising the rundown fringe of central London from Shoreditch to Paddington and expanding the boundaries of what is perceived as central London. It is estimated that over £2,000 per head has been spent on London transport infrastructure, against less than £200 elsewhere in the country. I am confident that using transport to change the economic geography, which has worked so well in London, will work in our other major cities. I believe that the Government have a good story to tell but that they are failing to tell it.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the chairman of the Rail Freight Group, and apologise to the House and to my noble friend Lord Hollick for being late and for missing the start of his speech. It was due to a 24 hour-plus failure of the Government’s queue-busting e-border system at Gatwick North. I expect that it will get mended one day; it may even work one day.
I am still not clear whether the HS2 people and the Government are really sure about what they are trying to build. We have heard many noble Lords speak this afternoon about the purpose of HS2. Is it a sort of vanity project to be the best in the world, going between lovely new stations at very high speeds— 360 kph to 400 kph—then making people walk 20 minutes to the nearest classic or existing station or bus station, so we can say how wonderful we are? I prefer to look at it as something that will provide more capacity as part of an integrated network so that most of the trains—certainly in phase 1, apart from those going to Birmingham—can go on to the existing network and give people more reliable and quicker through-services to wherever they want to go. As my noble friend Lord Monks said, that is what happens in France and Germany, where there are very few places where a special new station has been built some way from existing stations. Lille is one example, and I know quite a lot about that.
The other issue is whether we need to go that fast on a small island such as ours. France and Germany are very big, geographically, and they seem to think that 300 kph is enough, so why do we want to go 360 kph or 400 kph—especially when, certainly in phase 1, with all the lovely long tunnels being built under the Chilterns, you have to go slower because of the piston effect? But there we are.
I recall advising the then Secretary of State for Transport, my noble friend Lord Adonis, that we should start at the north end, partly for political reasons and partly because, as many noble Lords have said, the railways are a lot worse there than they are in the south. But there we are; we will be starting from scratch again—and we have all agreed that there is no actual route for HS3 across the Pennines. This at least has a route, and the project is going through the Commons Select Committee. So the best thing to do is to go ahead with it, get it right and make it cheaper.
There is a problem of capacity on this route corridor. My noble friend Lord Lea said that I should speak about rail freight, which is forecast to double in 20 years. That is not something plucked out of the air; that forecast has come from rail freight industry reports, from operators and everybody else in it. Passenger traffic on the railways in the past 20 years has doubled, and both of those are ahead of the Government’s forecasts at the time. So we can suddenly say that everything is going to change and there will be no more growth in future, but we would be unwise to do that. New lines and services have been started, with the Victoria line in London, new services in Scotland, and even the new line to the Borders. The noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, said that HS2 would be the first new line for 100 years, but he ought to know that the Queen opened a new line in Scotland last week. I am told that the traffic on that is already exceeding expectations, although that may just be a blip.
There is a capacity problem, but the analysis that I have done with some expert colleagues shows that growth is going to be greater on the longer-distance commuter services into Euston than on HS2. So my argument is that we should look at Euston as a terminus for HS2 and the west coast main line as one project. That is why we sent to the Secretary of State last week a project that involves not demolishing half of Camden, coming down the west side of the west coast main line, but diverting the tunnels from Old Oak Common into Queen’s Park—if noble Lords can follow my geography—using the existing lines into Euston and the existing platforms, but extended south. Noble Lords said that there is a capacity problem at Euston. In fact, there is not. An analysis of train turnaround times will show that they are a lot more relaxed and slower at Euston than they are at Paddington or Liverpool Street, and Euston has space for HS2 and most of the existing west coast main line trains on a similar turnaround time, provided that you divert some of the shorter suburban trains on to Crossrail, which is another plan, through Old Oak Common.
This project we have developed would save about £1.5 billion to £2 billion. It would avoid all the demolition around Euston. I do not agree with the idea that Euston should become a massive development like King’s Cross Railway Lands. After all, the railway lands were government-owned property. There is no government-owned property around Euston, apart from the station and the railway boundary. If people want to build towers all over the line going out as far as Queen’s Park, that should be a separate planning application, but there is not the same potential as there was at King’s Cross, which is lovely. It would be very good if Ministers could accept a scheme such as the one I have developed and save at least £1.5 billion and probably £2 billion, plus reducing the speed of the trains from 360 kph or 400 kph to 300 kph, which I am told would save 50% of the cost of the train. These trains would then be built to the British gauge, like the old Eurostar, and could go anywhere in the country. This probably offers them the best of both worlds: cost saving, less hassle at Euston, shorter Select Committee time perhaps, and a project that would not involve 20 years of construction at Euston. The latest figure is 680 trucks a day out of Euston for several years, taking spoil away. Why they cannot use rail freight I have not yet discovered, but I shall try.
Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise (Con)
My Lords, HS2 from a business perspective is a conundrum: a great idea, an inspiring vision and yet, sadly, a very bad investment. Of course there are manifest benefits, but they simply do not justify the costs. In his committee’s excellent report, the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, rightly asked why businessmen like me should not pay for the supposed benefits we receive from faster journeys on this railway. The answer, I am afraid, is that it would bring into sharp focus the fact that we would not pay the extraordinary price required to justify this faster railway: a 30% to 100% premium on fares to travel a little bit faster for people who are making better and better use of their time on railways simply would not be worth it.
There is another and deeper reason why the failure to translate benefits into revenue streams is financially dangerous in this appraisal. It allows the benefit cost ratio to pull off an extraordinary accounting trick. The BCR is essentially designed to appraise government services that are provided for free—schools, hospitals et cetera—but it begins to fall down and is not fit for purpose when it assesses revenue-generating projects because the BCR assesses only non-financial benefits. It conveniently assumes that much of the capital cost can be eliminated from the appraisal by offsetting it against discounted future revenue streams. In doing so, it effectively eliminates £30 billion of costs from the returns calculation, vastly overstating the BCR and the returns on sunk capital.
I gather that some may not be hugely interested in this, so let me give an example. Be wary when the Government claim that HS2 will deliver £2 of benefit for every £1 invested. It is simply not true because it does not include the dead weight of capital that has been offset against future revenues. It is like a business promising you a return of 100% on a £1,000 investment and only in the small print mentioning that you have to invest a further £10,000 at 2.5% in order to get this special return.
This problem relates directly to a second and more fundamental problem of the BCR. In business terms, it assesses only the net present value of an investment and ignores the equally, often more, important measure: the internal rate of return. In doing so, it conceals the fact that this project delivers pitifully low returns. It is like being asked to choose between two options: Option A, which doubles your money, and Option B, which gives a 20% increase. Everyone would choose Option A until they were told that Option A would take 100 years to give you your return and Option B would do it in 18 months. Then you would change your mind. That is the difference between looking at internal rate of return and net present value alone.
This might sound like an accountants’ tragedy that will not affect real people, but it will. If we have learnt anything since the credit crunch in 2007, it is that the Government’s capacity for debt is finite, and by frittering away the nation’s balance sheet on this project we will miss the opportunity to invest much more wisely in other infrastructure. This project will decimate our transport capital budget for years to come.
The alternative to HS2 is not another grand project, it is myriad small, high-return projects that would deliver benefits in the near future: bypasses, flyovers, underpasses, junction improvements, filter lanes, bridges, commuter line upgrades, carriage improvements, platform improvements and more. Such projects would serve people every day of their working life rather than just for the odd long-distance journey. They would be projects that would serve the many rather than the few. Transformative projects in every town and city of our nation could improve the quality of life and productivity of millions of people who will instead be stuck in slow, crowded commuter trains and unnecessary daily traffic jams—all so that a relatively small number of the people can whizz past on a very fast train while they are sitting there. If they are lucky, they will see them.
Listening to this debate, my worry is that the proponents of HS2 have made the terrible business mistake of falling in love with their investment, and that that love in its ardour has blinded them to the costs, risks, debt, downsides, potential redundancy and, most importantly, lost opportunities. I hope that this excellent report brings a little sense to this debate because it seems that for the proponents of this project there is literally no cost too great for HS2. So I finish with a simple question for the Minister: at what price would we not build HS2?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Select Committee for its excellent report. Over time, I have come to accept, if not to love, the need for additional capacity on the railway network, but it is always important to test public policy proposals and I think that it is generally accepted around your Lordships’ House that HS2 has not been properly examined. This is an exemplary report. It must have been great fun watching economics in action. It was a joy to read the forensic demolition of the Government’s economic case, as it was to hear it distilled in my noble friend Lord Hollick’s excellent speech. As many people have said, the Government’s response was tokenistic and not appropriate in the circumstances.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, for raising the question of the Chilterns AONB. I declare an interest in that I and my family live in Little Missenden, which lies very close to the line of HS2 phase 1. I want today to raise the concern that, for reasons which are still not clear, the HS2 Bill Committee has effectively ruled out extending the deep tunnel which at the moment goes part of the way through the Chilterns AONB—a decision which might seem to be rather discourteous, to say the least, as it was taken at the very start of the petitioning process for this area, effectively denying some 800 applicants in person the chance to give their evidence to be considered by the committee.
It is obvious that at the heart of a decision to allow a long Chiltern tunnel is a cost versus value decision, which is familiar territory for economists. There has to be a trade-off. There are additional costs that a longer tunnel would bear, but there are significant savings from reduced compensation payments and reduced land take. However, such a trade-off cannot ignore the benefits which accrue to the nation from preserving a special part of our countryside. After all, the whole business case for HS2 is based on a much disputed calculation of the benefit that business men and women get from saving time by faster travel. If that can be done, why can we not value the countryside? There are ways of quantifying these benefits, and a methodology is available that is already used by government. So far, though, the department and the Bill Select Committee have been highly resistant to engaging in this debate. Why is this?
Large infrastructure projects going through relatively unspoiled countryside effectively urbanise it. It is proposed to have 18 trains an hour each way, which cause noise and vibration. Maintenance activity will take place all night. The trains cause light pollution, and parts of the route have to have fixed lighting. There will be vent shafts where there are tunnels; access points; security fencing and sound proofing baffles; maintenance roads; balancing ponds; power lines and gantries; earthworks, planting and huge earthwork bunds to mitigate what is built; and soil from cuttings deposited right across the Chilterns. The materials are not natural, the scale is grotesque and the impact is to introduce alien cityscape elements into a predominantly rural environment.
The attempt by the promoter and the department to minimise the impact of these intrusions into the AONB—for example, by arguing, as they did recently to the Bill Committee, that:
“It’s really only a very, very small percentage impact, less than 1% impact, that we’re having on some particular feature of the AONB, whether it’s ancient woodland or woodland area”,
is as demeaning as it is misleading. The clue is in the title: it is an area of outstanding natural beauty, and the value placed on it has to be on the whole area, not by extracting fractions or percentages. It is an irreplaceable resource. You can put the earth back on a cut-and-cover tunnel, you can grass it and you can grow some new trees, but you do not have what age and interaction with people and their dwellings over centuries have produced in the rich patina of a landscape that is largely unchanged since pre-Saxon times, which is the key reason why it has merited an AONB designation.
As the Bill Committee has heard in evidence, designation as an AONB brings with it a requirement on Ministers and statutory bodies to do what they can to conserve and enhance our higher-quality English landscapes and protect their scenic beauty. What evidence is there that Ministers have taken this responsibility seriously? The National Planning Policy Framework says that major development should not take place in AONBs except in exceptional circumstances after appropriate tests have been made. What evidence is there that these tests were done properly?
The statutory framework also lays down that a relevant authority shall have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB. A relevant person is any Minister of the Crown, public body or statutory undertaker. Given that requirement, why would a rational promoter—or a rational Secretary of State, for that matter, if that is not a tautology—not wish to see the AONB protected, first by considering routes other than through the AONB but, failing that, by considering a deep tunnel through the Chilterns?
HS2 itself has recently accepted that there is no rational basis for rejecting a tunnel. In its recent report, applying its criteria and using its consultants and its judgment, it says:
“It is clear that a Chiltern Long Tunnel would provide overall environmental benefits compared to the HS2 Proposed Scheme during operation and construction”.
It also confirms that such a tunnel would not adversely affect the programme.
Faced with over 800 petitions from individual organisations and local councils calling for a long tunnel through the Chilterns, recommendations from the statutory bodies concerned with the Chilterns that a deep, long tunnel is the only possible mitigation, and the requirement under the statutory framework and the national planning framework to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the AONB, the HS2 Bill Select Committee takes the view that the tunnel is too expensive. We do not know what persuaded the committee to take this view, and it has not published any evidence in the form of a calculation that demonstrates that the benefits from preserving the Chiltern AONB do not outweigh the additional costs of a long tunnel.
The missing ingredient at the moment is a sense of what we will lose if the scheme goes ahead in its current form. People might be much more willing to support HS2 if they knew that the only AONB on the line had been preserved by a Government who knew not only the cost of the project but the value of what was affected.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I believe that I am one of the majority of people in the north of England who are in favour of HS2, if not necessarily of all its details. I thought that the report was a little disappointing because it cannot seem to make up its mind whether it is against the whole project or is simply making some specific—in some cases, quite positive and constructive—suggestions. I suspect that this was the compromise that the committee came to in order to produce an agreed report.
A lot of the detail in the report is useful. I shall read out one of the main conclusions and recommendations:
“An investment decision on the scale of HS2 should have been made with reference to a co-ordinated transport plan for passenger and freight traffic across all modes of transport”.
That might be a little ambitious, but the decision should certainly have been made with reference to a co-ordinated plan for passenger and freight traffic on the railways and perhaps beyond that. This criticism, which I think is right, is not of HS2 but of the infrastructure planning system in this country, which does not do this; it puts projects forward in a piecemeal way, not as part of a co-ordinated national planning system. Noble Lords who have attended debates on planning and planning Bills will know that I consider that the whole planning system in this country is fairly bust; this is an example of that at national level. However, we have the system that we have and we are not going to get a super-modernised, streamlined planning system that works in the short term or indeed beyond that, so we have to deal with HS2 as we have it.
One of the little things in the report that niggled me was its continued references to “taxpayers’ money” and “taxpayer subsidies” and quotes such as,
“many taxpayers would derive no benefit from the project”.
The use of the word “taxpayer” in this context is sloppy, ideological right-wing language of the sort that has taken over in this country. I find that disappointing coming from a committee of your Lordships’ House, from which I expect better.
As far as the money is concerned, everyone is talking about £50 billion, although, as we know, the figure is £28 billion plus contingencies plus the rolling stock. Some people think that the existing network can be fettled in such a way as to cater for the required extra capacity, but that would need the extra rolling stock anyway, so at least some of that rolling stock is to be discounted, and we do not know how much of the contingencies might be required.
Even if the cost is £50 billion, I wonder why people are upset about it. Perhaps it is because it is a railway line to the north of England—to Manchester, Leeds and strange foreign places like that where people talk a bit odd. Let us look at the London schemes that are around. There is Crossrail, costing £15 billion—a super scheme with some fantastic engineering, but expensive. We have Crossrail 2, which is forecast to cost £25 billion, although I do not know whether that includes contingencies. Thameslink has cost at least £6 billion. The proposed extensions to the Bakerloo line could cost £3 billion or £4 billion, depending on how far they go.
So we are talking of investment in London that is of the same order as HS2, but no one says that these projects are too expensive, cannot be afforded, are going to bankrupt the country and all the technical stuff that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, came out with, which I am afraid I did not understand, although I am sure that it was all very good. Why? Because it is in London. Not very long ago, the Mayor of London, bless him, was calling for a scheme for a great ring rail around the outside of London—a sort of M25 railway, as I understood it—and he was happily saying, “Oh, it’ll only cost £40 billion, that’s all right”. That seems to have been put on one side for the moment, but who knows? If you are talking about things in London, money does not matter; when it comes to the rest of the country, people say that it cannot be afforded.
I associate myself with everything that my noble friend Lady Kramer said in her excellent, passionate speech. I also associate myself with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, who talked about line capacity with more expertise than I could, so I shall not try to say some of the things that I might have. However, the meaning of capacity seems to have been misunderstood both in this report and in a lot of what is said. People look at capacity as being the proportion of the seats that are occupied on the trains that are running. If one is running a transport service, be it bus, rail or some other service, capacity is about the whole service provided. One cannot expect to run late-night trains and to have them as full as at peak times, such as teatime. Without the late-night service, there is no overall service and some of the daytime trade that would go back at night will be lost. Therefore, a proper, comprehensive and regular service is bound to have lots of trains that are not full. That does not mean to say that they are under capacity.
My time is up. Some of the points in this report should be taken forward. We should get a better response from the Government, because the Government’s response was pretty pathetic. However, for goodness’ sake, let there be no more delay. Once people start putting their feet on the brakes, this scheme will never happen. For the economic good of the north of England and the Midlands, of all the cities, the towns and the whole area, we need this railway line built as soon as possible.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches, as my noble friend Lord Greaves indicated, our instincts are in support of HS2. Our allies include the leaders of our great northern cities, because they know what is good for their area. From the start, as my noble friend Lady Kramer indicated, we have supported the concept of HS2. Far too few major long-term infrastructure projects were planned by the Governments of the latter part of the 20th century and the early 21st century, so the Labour Government’s 2010 Command Paper setting out the strategic case for HS2 was welcome.
We are convinced of the need for additional capacity. It is important to recognise that the term “capacity” means two things here: it means seats on trains and it means train slots. Although various remedial actions can increase the number of seats on the train—having an extra carriage and so on—we are getting to the point where there are simply no more train slots. One issue that has not been aired much in this debate is that of freight. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, indicated, freight transport is going to double in the next 20 years and there is simply not space for it on the existing railway.
Therefore, if we are to build at all, we need to be ambitious. We also need to learn the lessons of the past. Rarely in this country have Governments overestimated future demand for any infrastructure improvements. Reference has already been made to the Borders Railway, which opened only last week in Scotland and already appears to have a problem of capacity. The operators are already looking at putting on longer trains, given that only a single-track railway was built, making it impossible, or possible only at the margin, to increase the number of trains.
The travelling population of this country is bound to grow. We know that. The population is increasing and despite the predictions over many years that we shall all work increasingly from home—as indeed we do—in practice business use of trains has increased dramatically. We are social animals. We need to go and see our customers and so on. Also, leisure travel is for ever on the increase. Since 1997 train usage has doubled, as we recently heard in a report.
For economic reasons, on these Benches we support HS2. We do so for environmental reasons, too. Recent levels of air pollution near our roads have surprised the Government and local councils and they have led to EU penalties. That has to be addressed. Levels of congestion in our towns and cities and on our motorways make trains an attractive alternative. As a party that puts the environment at the top of its agenda, we particularly welcome HS2 because its speed and long-distance nature make it a real alternative to domestic air travel.
We are not deterred in principle by a high price tag, since the investment is very long term. We certainly do not believe that the capacity issues can be solved by improving existing lines. That cannot produce the capacity that we already require without immense disruption over decades for the travelling public; the impact on businesses would also be massive. There can, of course, still be incremental increases while HS2 is being built, but that does not take away from the need for HS2. We are, therefore, HS2 supporters, but we are critical friends.
I thank the Economic Affairs Committee for its report because, although I do not regard some of its criticisms as valid or necessarily relevant, there are a number of good questions that the Government need to answer. The first relates to the need for an overall transport master plan. We have the plan for a northern powerhouse, but the Government need to persuade us that HS2 will be part of that co-ordinated approach and will fit in properly with that plan. It is also important that account be taken of the impact of HS2 on north Wales and Scotland as well as on the north of England.
On cost estimates, with electrification plans on hold the Government are not in a very happy place. I have three observations. First, the cost of HS2 must not be allowed to swallow up investment, driving out other investment. This has to be used to enhance our network overall. Secondly, much of the cost is associated with the plans for Euston station. The alternatives to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred, which were circulated to many of us, would allow significantly less costly investment there. The changes would also be much less disruptive and much quicker to build. We need to build this line as quickly as possible. As my noble friend Lady Kramer said, we are already late to the game in comparison with other countries.
Thirdly, speed costs money. HS2 is planned to achieve 360 kilometres per hour. It is estimated that if it were to be built to achieve 300 kilometres per hour, which compares well internationally, that would save 50% of the cost on trains. Given that in practice 360 kilometres per hour cannot be reached over quite a lot of the journey because of tunnels and stations, is the significant extra cost worth while?
I urge the Government to reconsider the issue of rolling-stock gauge. The plan to use continental-gauge rolling stock is expensive and restrictive because that can only be used from Euston to Birmingham. Classic, compatible rolling stock is much more flexible. It makes the whole scheme much cheaper and it would bring the benefits more quickly to a wider part of the country.
On the issues relating to Euston station, if one looks at the overall rail network, one can see that Old Oak Common will be very well connected as a hub because of Crossrail and so on. Many passengers will want to get on and alight there; one therefore wants to consider whether the impact on Euston in terms of passenger numbers has been accurately assessed. Are the Government satisfied that they have fully considered the alternative plans for Euston? If they have not had a chance yet, will they provide an assurance that they will do so?
In conclusion, I fully accept that any big project will always have objectors—those opposed in principle and those opposed to the detail. Sometimes those opposed in principle dress up their arguments as opposition to the detail. Two weeks ago, I visited the railway museum in Swindon, where I saw records on display of the vociferous opposition to the Great Western Railway, including its route. By the way, it took Brunel only two weeks to survey and choose the route—in your dreams, nowadays. There was also opposition in principle from those who thought that the railway was new-fangled and unnecessary. That struck a strong chord. Nowadays, we look back and admire the vision and ambition of Brunel and his backers. I say to the Government that we are pleased that they continue to adhere to the ambitious aims for HS2 espoused by the coalition but ask them to reassure us that the public purse will be spending its money wisely.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome today’s debate and the powerful speeches that we have heard, including from my noble friends Lord Adonis and Lord Prescott, and from my noble friend Lord Mitchell, who told us that reports of the impending death of the railway industry were not premature. I also thank my noble friend Lord Hollick and the Economic Affairs Committee for their report, which, as my noble friend Lord Monks pointed out, looked at HS2 from one particular, albeit important, angle.
The report displays a certain lack of enthusiasm for the project, though not for investment in rail infrastructure. It says that:
“The Government has yet to make a convincing case for proceeding … it is not at all clear that HS2 represents the best, most cost-effective solution to the problems it is intended to solve”,
and that the Government “must answer” the list of questions set out in chapter 9 of the report before the high-speed rail Bill completes its passage through Parliament.
The Government published their response in July and presumably its content will form part of the Minister’s response—though not, I hope, the whole response, in the light of the views that some noble Lords have expressed about the adequacy of the Government’s replies to the questions posed in chapter 9. The July response, however, includes a statement in paragraph 1.13:
“Together with the Government’s Northern Transport Strategy, HS2 will bring the Northern cities closer together”.
We had a debate before the Recess on the Government’s northern transport strategy, followed by an announcement shortly afterwards that made it clear that everything was not quite as rosy with that strategy as a reasonable person might have concluded. Any lack of openness and transparency about HS2 will not assist in bringing a successful conclusion to this project, which was an important commitment of the last Labour Government and my noble friend Lord Adonis, and one to which we continue to give our support—including, despite what I am about to say, myself personally.
I have an interest to declare, in that I have a home close to the intended line of route. I live in an area where there is considerable opposition to HS2, as the HS2 Select Committee is by now aware. There will be no direct benefit to the residents of the area in question from HS2 since there will be no HS2 station nearby, but only the inevitable disruption to many residents over a lengthy period which arises from the construction of any major new piece of infrastructure in a semi-urban area, and the still-unresolved loss—despite visits by more than one Minister making sympathetic noises—of an important and substantial outdoor activity centre used by a great many young people.
My noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara has also raised concerns felt by residents in the Chilterns about the impact of the present HS2 plans. The London Borough of Camden, while opposed to HS2, has said that if it is to proceed there needs to be a commitment from the Government to a properly funded and timetabled programme to develop the whole of Euston station to facilitate the building of affordable homes, create new jobs and give a significant economic boost—a point to which my noble friend Lord Adonis referred.
On the line of route for phase 2, the Government simply say that they will outline the way forward before the end of this year, which is not same as saying that they are anywhere near confirming their intentions on the line of route. Thus the uncertainty continues, and with it the associated concerns.
Some concerns to which I have referred can never be fully addressed, short of abandoning HS2, but a number of concerns can be addressed in whole or in part. The Government ought to be taking that point seriously and addressing outstanding concerns and unresolved issues as soon as possible. They should also recognise that most of those who will feel the greatest impact of the inevitable upheaval from the construction of HS2 will gain no direct benefit. In that regard, a bit more care and thought might also at least avoid own goals, which call into question competence. I understand that at the Select Committee, HS2 Ltd had to make an apology for having told concerned residents in one location for more than two years that the tunnel would be 30 metres beneath them, when the reality was that it would be only about half that depth.
I have already indicated our continuing support for the HS2 project. We are of course far from alone in taking that stance. The House of Commons Transport Committee, at the end of 2013, expressed its support for the strategic case for HS2 and said that it stood by the conclusion that HS2 is needed,
“to provide a long-term increase in the capacity of the railway and that alternative proposals to increase capacity are not sufficient to accommodate long-term forecast demand”.
The general secretary of the TUC has welcomed the decision to invest in high-speed rail, stating that it will,
“prove vital in getting more passengers and freight onto rail, narrowing the north-south divide and speeding our economic recovery”.
There have also been responses to the report we are considering today. The CBI shares the view that a modern railway is needed to deal with lack of capacity on the west coast main line. The CBI said that HS2,
“will better connect eight of our ten biggest cities, boosting … economies along and beyond the route … It’s vital we avoid any further delays to the project”.
The British Chambers of Commerce agreed that the Economic Affairs Committee,
“is right to investigate the cost of the project and its ability to rebalance the economy”.
However, the BCC went on to say that,
“if businesses have to wait several years for the details to be fleshed out, the UK’s competitiveness will be further compromised. There is a convincing case for HS2, as it is the only solution that can deliver the step-change in capacity that Britain’s north-south railways require”.
The Birmingham Chamber of Commerce said it believes that the Lords committee has largely ignored evidence given to it about the impact outside London and has focused on the capital, and that HS2 will provide massive opportunities to redevelop greater Birmingham and reskill parts of the workforce in the West Midlands.
Network Rail has said that, with over 4,000 trains running every day on the west coast main line, our busiest and most economically important line is all but full, and that HS2 will fundamentally reshape the UK’s rail network in a way that incremental improvements simply cannot deliver.
Elected leaders in our northern city regions, including Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool, have also reiterated their support for HS2 and the benefits that it will bring. The chair of Transport for the North has said that we should not undermine one of the most significant measures, which alongside—not instead of—east-west transport improvements is necessary to help rebalance the nation’s economy. In his words:
“We need to stop the British habit of finding every way to delay major infrastructure investment and get on with delivering and maximising the very real economic benefits it will bring as it creates the long term capacity to bring our great cities within easy reach of each other and international markets”.
I appreciate that the Economic Affairs Committee has not actually said that HS2 should be delayed or put on hold, but rather has raised a number of questions about the case for HS2 and the need for the Government to provide convincing answers before the enabling legislation for the first phase of the construction completes its passage through Parliament. It is up to the Government to provide those convincing answers.
There is certainly some opposition to HS2, but there is also widespread support for the project related primarily to capacity, connectivity and regeneration, including the support reiterated by the shadow Transport Secretary in the Commons yesterday.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the Economic Affairs Committee, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, for its work, which is the basis of today’s debate. I also thank all noble Lords for their contributions this afternoon.
It has been a stimulating and interesting debate, and one that has made us cast our memories back through history. I must admit that, when I heard my noble friend Lord Wolfson talk about NPVs and IRRs, I did cast my mind back to the many seminars I attended on investment analysis during my degree. Nevertheless, he raised some points that I will come on to.
We also heard views, and rightly so, from a scientific, economic and, with the right reverend Prelate’s comments, biblical basis. We can agree on one thing above all else: it has been a very absorbing debate, for over three hours now, and important issues have been raised. I will seek to address most, if not all, the questions with the caveat that, if there are certain questions that I do not cover, we will review those and write to noble Lords in that respect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, put it aptly when she said we can all agree that high-quality transport infrastructure is essential for our future prosperity.
I previously quoted the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, as saying that we should, “Get on with it”—which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, just paraphrased—but I was a bit perturbed when he said that people in Yorkshire hate members of the Government. I am a member of the Government who has many family members in Yorkshire and have visited there, both before my membership of the House of Lords—and pre my ministerial experience and responsibility—and also during it. I have always found the people of Yorkshire to be particularly warm towards me. Maybe there are exceptions to every rule.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The Prime Minister has great regard for people from Yorkshire. Great cricketers come from that area as well. I am sure we can have a debate on cricket in due course, but I will move on to transport.
It was almost 200 years ago that the early canals and railways helped make Britain the most powerful economy in the world. The fundamentals are the same. Good freight transport, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, gives manufacturers a competitive edge by cutting the cost of deliveries and distribution. Good passenger transport links businesses with customers and links people with jobs, friends and family—from London to Yorkshire, indeed. Rail remains an essential part of the solution to the country’s transport needs today, but not to the detriment of other elements of transport.
The noble Lords, Lord Berkeley, Lord Greaves and Lord Monks, made particular mention of a national transport plan. I assure all noble Lords that the Government have set out how HS2 fits within the wider transport policy. The Strategic Case for HS2, published in 2013, explained in detail how HS2 fits with investment in the existing rail network and the wider government strategic aims of supporting growth and addressing the productivity gap between the north and south of the country. Several noble Lords mentioned the northern transport strategy, which was published earlier this year. It sets out the transport role in creating that northern powerhouse, of which HS2 is key. In July this year, the Government published Fixing the Foundations, setting out our plans to address the UK’s long-term productivity problem. All parts of the Government will contribute to that, including HS2. Let me assure noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Wolfson, that investment in rail is just one part of it. For example, we have committed through our roads strategy to invest £15 billion in our roads network over this Parliament.
Investing in rail is every bit as important today as it was in the pioneering Victorian era. For the last half century, we have allowed our infrastructure to fall well behind that of our competitors. Instead of building new capacity and modernising the network, and despite soaring passenger numbers, we have tried to patch and mend our ageing railway.
Central to the case for HS2 are data that reveal the true extent of the capacity crunch facing the UK rail network. Even with over £50 billion of planned transport investment over the next six years, the railways will be overwhelmed. As several noble Lords said, we are not just planning for today; this is about planning for the future. Overall, demand for rail travel has more than doubled since privatisation to 1.7 billion journeys a year. Intercity lines have experienced even faster growth, with journeys between London, Birmingham and Manchester trebling in the last 20 years. This is putting acute pressure on the infrastructure. The west coast line, for example, is now the busiest mixed-use rail line in Europe. Despite an extensive £9 billion upgrade programme completed in 2008, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, pointed out, train paths on this line are effectively full.
Today we have the power to deliver the transformation in rail capacity that we so desperately need. HS2 is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put the years of underinvestment and neglect behind us. Therefore, I welcome the support from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson—support from both parties—on how we move forward with HS2. HS2 will bind Britain together and provide the space that we need to grow. As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, articulated, without HS2 we would end up spending more money.
The project was always going to attract critics. Anything this ambitious will be controversial, particularly in a country that has seen no major new national transport infrastructure built since the coming of the motorways. The original railway was controversial; the Channel Tunnel was controversial, and some would argue that it still is; and the M25 remains, at times, a source of controversy and debate—anyone who has travelled on it will understand why. However, nobody questions the case for these schemes today. Frankly, the easy option for any Government would be to do nothing and leave the problem for some future generation to tackle. But the fact is that, if we do not take action now, major routes are going to be overwhelmed, as was so eloquently summarised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
The benefits of HS2 are something that the Government, the Opposition and all major contributors have talked about before. It is about improving connectivity. HS2 will deliver the step change in capacity that we need to keep our vital arteries flowing. Compared with today, HS2 could triple the number of seats out of Euston. It will also unlock the capacity for freight on the west coast main line, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned. It will link eight of Britain’s 10 largest cities, directly serving one in five of the UK population, a point well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. It will benefit places not directly on the HS2 route by freeing up much-needed capacity on the existing railway.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, suggested that HS2 would suck investment into London and away from other cities. HS2 is designed to improve the connectivity of the north more than London, which has good transport links. More than 70% of the jobs supported by HS2 are expected to be outside London. A study by Network Rail has shown that over 100 towns and cities across the country could benefit from extra commuter and intercity services on existing lines, with capacity being liberated by the development of HS2. It will be particularly beneficial in the north and the Midlands, helping to rebalance the economy.
The legacy of HS2 will be felt well beyond those who use our transport networks. It will inspire a generation, providing new skills and jobs across a wide range of disciplines. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, talked passionately about the need to invest in skills beyond just looking at infrastructure. This provides just that initiative. Recently, 11 September was the opening day of a programme of visits that I am making as the Skills Minister in the Department for Transport, one of which will be HS2 themed. Currently, only 5% of our children aspire to a career in transport and only 8% of Britain’s engineering workforce is female—the lowest rate in Europe. That is something we need to change, and the National College for High Speed Rail will be an integral part of the Government’s strategy for delivering a national high-speed rail network for Britain as well as designing and delivering the high-level technical skills needed for the industry more generally. HS2 is part of the Government’s growth strategy.
Of course, HS2 is a key strand of the Government’s commitment to support economic prosperity across the UK, but it is not the only one. In July 2015, the Chancellor of the Exchequer launched Fixing the Foundations, setting out our plan to address the UK’s long-term productivity problem—every part of government will contribute. For example, the HS2 growth strategies set out ambitious goals for regeneration and development on the back of HS2.
Our economic case is robust and shows HS2 represents good value for money. If anything our methodology is quite conservative. The benefit-to-cost ratio, which was mentioned by several noble Lords, is valued at 2.3 —or providing £2-worth of benefits for every £1 spent. The BCR could be even higher, reaching 4.5 if rail demand continues to rise until 2049.
We are committed to maximising benefits while keeping a firm grip on costs. We have established a robust framework of delegations and approvals. There is a joint HM Treasury, DfT and HS2 Ltd cost and risk group to ensure that there is a shared and continued drive down on costs. The spending round in 2013 set a clear funding envelope of £50.1 billion for HS2.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, raised the issue of fares and why the Government do not increase fares for business passengers to cover costs. The actual decision on fare structures will be taken by future Governments. However, our underlying assumption is that it is more important to maximise usage for the wider benefit of citizens and the economy than charge premium fares. The Government have also committed to keeping fares down, which is clearly illustrated by our commitment to cap fares at RPI for the term of the Parliament.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and my noble friend Lord Caithness, among others, raised the issue of the economic case, and clearly the committee was looking at HS2 on that basis. Our appraisal techniques are regarded by the DFT as being world class, and a number of experts provided evidence to the Lords committee that showed that the economic case was robust. Some have been mentioned already but, for example, Professor Venables noted that our quantification of user benefits and wider economic impacts was,
“done very well and very professionally”,
and Professor Graham, who is a transport economist, also commended our use of sensitivity testing.
The issue of transparency was raised about assessments of the HS2 case. In March 2010, we established the case for the high-speed rail network serving London and the West Midlands. In February 2011, we announced the consultation into the Government’s high-speed rail strategy and the preferred route for phase 1 of the scheme. In January 2012, there was the Government’s decision to proceed with phase 1 of HS2. There has been full transparency in that regard.
The right reverend Prelate raised the issue of the impact of HS2 on Chester. Phase 1 of HS2 generates significant journey-time savings to the north-west of the country and Network Rail estimates that up to 100 cities could benefit. I assure the right reverend Prelate that no decisions have yet been taken on rail services that will run when HS2 is complete, but the Government aim to ensure that those currently served by direct services will continue to be so.
Suggestions have also been made over the overall spending package, but as the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained to the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, last week, in the context of an annual government budget of £750 billion, the cost of £50 billion for HS2 over 20 years to improve the nation’s infrastructure, I can assure my noble friend Lord Wolfson, is something that the Chancellor believes we can afford.
The Government have also considered a range of alternatives to HS2 and published a series of substantial reports that weighed up the options, including upgrades to the existing rail network, the use of alternative modes and a conventional-speed line. The truth is that none of these alternatives would provide the big increase in capacity that several noble Lords referred to, and, more importantly, the connectivity that we need to meet future demand. Nor do they address the issue of reliability.
I shall seek to answer some of the other questions raised by noble Lords. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester raised the issue of wanting the fastest railway in the world. Sir David Higgins has been clear that we must build a railway that stands the test of time. We have undertaken extensive assessment of alternatives including slower speeds, but none of them offers the same scale of benefits as HS2.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, also raised the issue of extending HS2 to Scotland. HS2 delivers significant connectivity improvements to Scotland. The full Y network reduces rail journey times to Glasgow by 30 minutes and Edinburgh by 45 minutes. I assure noble Lords that the UK Government are considering with the Scottish Government opportunities to improve links further between HS2 and Scotland.
The noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Lea, raised the issue of HS3 linked to HS2. The Government are moving forward with plans for the east-west high-speed rail links and will invest £13 billion in this Parliament for better connecting the region, so that northern towns and cities can pool their strengths to create a single economy. The DfT is working jointly with Transport for the North to develop and prioritise the rail options for the first tranches ready for consideration and construction in the next rail investment period.
The noble Lords, Lord Prescott, Lord Snape and Lord Greaves, and the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, raised the issue of spending on transport beyond HS2. I assure all noble Lords that this is in addition to the other £38 billion that the Government have already confirmed as spending in this Parliament. This is broken down with various schemes and I will seek to write to noble Lords listing some of the schemes and expenditure included in that £38 billion.
The noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, and my noble friend Lord Wolfson also wanted an assurance that HS2 is not at the expense of other investment. I assure them that HS2 will not be at the expense of other transport investment. Overall, there is £73 billion of transport spending between 2015-16 and 2020-21.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, talked about platforms at Euston. I assure noble Lords that HS2 will not reduce the number of platforms at Euston. The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, said that it would. It will not; it will deliver 11 new high-speed platforms and 11 for the existing network. That is a total of 22 platforms, which is four higher than the current 18 platforms.
Lord Berkeley
Will the noble Lord clarify that? There are 18 platforms at Euston at the moment and if they will be reduced to 11 or 12 for the west coast main line, surely that is a reduction.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That is also part of what will be the structure serving the intercity network, and some of that burden will be eased by the opening of the HS2 platforms. The overall capacity will rise to 22 platforms, but the noble Lord is quite right to point out that the current 18 platforms serve both the commuter network and the existing intercity network.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, talked about ministerial direction and the value-for-money case for HS2. I have already alluded to the benefit-cost ratio and I have also talked about the number of experts who provided evidence to the committee in this respect. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, asked about the pause mentioned in relation to Network Rail on the appointment of Sir Peter Hendy. Sir Peter has a proven track record in delivering on major transport challenges. He will develop proposals for the rail upgrade programme and, as I have said before from this Dispatch Box, he will report to the Secretary of State in the autumn and we will come back to that. The noble Lord also asked about confidence in Sir David Higgins. The short answer to that is, yes, we have full confidence in his ability.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and other Peers asked about terminating at Old Oak Common. The vast majority of passengers coming into London want to travel on to other parts of the capital, so by having a stop at Old Oak Common, the links that will be provided by Crossrail will be available to all those using HS2. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, talked about ignoring the impact of technology. I believe he said that he will be 92 by the time HS2 comes live. I hope to join him in that carriage. I will be a tad younger, but nevertheless we will hook up at that time. But let me assure him that the Government are committed to the extension of broadband, as I am sure he is aware. The previous Government invested heavily in it and broadband remains a priority. But technology should not be used to the detriment of other investments. We can see that passenger rail journeys have increased at an incredible rate up to the current figures that I quoted earlier, and there is no evidence to suggest that technology such as videoconferencing will significantly reduce future rail demand or the spread of the internet. Time will tell, but thus far the evidence is not in support of that.
The environmental impact of HS2 was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, and my noble friend Lord Framlingham. Among others, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also touched on it in terms of the Chilterns. Let me assure noble Lords by giving examples of the steps being taken to avoid or significantly reduce the effects in the phase 1 environmental mitigation. These include some 127 kilometres of tunnels and cuttings to reduce noise and visual effects, as well as providing 102 kilometres of noise barriers along the surface sections to reduce the effect on communities.
I am coming to the end of my comments because I can see that the clock has run down on me. However, I will certainly respond to other questions which I have not had a chance to cover. Perhaps I may turn briefly to the question put by my noble friend Lord Framlingham about the Chilterns. Since the scheme was announced, we have introduced major changes to the proposed route through the areas of outstanding natural beauty. As recommended by the Select Committee, we are promoting a further extension to the Chilterns tunnel, which will offer broadly the same environmental benefits as the longer tunnel proposed by the residents’ environmental group. I will come back specifically on where we are with the Select Committee, which I believe has taken evidence from most of the witnesses. However, we are still awaiting the final comments of the committee in this respect. As I have said, if I have missed any points, I will return to them.
We believe, and the Government are clear, that there is a case for HS2. We have a 19th-century rail infrastructure that is trying to support a 21st-century economy, as the noble Lord, Lord Lea, put it so eloquently. Many of our main intercity routes are reaching capacity at busy times. As the passenger crowding statistics released last week clearly show, demand is growing rapidly and will continue to do so as our economy recovers. HS2 will have a transformational effect. It will improve connectivity, transform capacity, and free up space on our crowded rail network. It is important that the Government of the day should invest, and that is what we are seeking to do. We welcome the support of many noble Lords. This is our chance to do what the Victorian rail pioneers did all those years ago. We want to leave an infrastructure legacy that is fit for generations to come.
Lord Hollick
My Lords, I thank all the speakers in today’s debate. My noble friend Lord Desai wanted us to conjure up some animal spirits. I think that we have certainly had some very spirited contributions, and I am grateful for that. The Minister will have noted that many speakers, including those who are very much in favour of HS2, are concerned that many of the questions we have raised have not been answered, and time has not permitted him to respond to them in detail today. So for the third time of asking, because I have already written twice to the Secretary of State, I urge the Minister to seek to get us detailed answers to these questions. He has a good case to make, so why are the Government failing to make it in a persuasive way? I hope that the appointment of my noble friend Lord Adonis to the board of HS2 will encourage them to enter into the spirit of debate and answer the questions. None of the speakers in the debate is reluctant to see us invest in the future of this country, but we want to know that this is the best investment and that it has been prioritised and handled in the best way.
Middle East and North Africa
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Verma
That this House takes note of the humanitarian impact of developments in the Middle East and North Africa.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development (Baroness Verma) (Con)
My Lords, the world is facing humanitarian emergencies in unprecedented numbers, scale and complexity, from the Ebola epidemic that hit Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea last year to the devastating earthquake in Nepal in April, and from the current crisis in Yemen to the conflict that has raged in Syria for more than four years now. We have all been struck by the tragic images of desperate refugees putting their lives in the hands of criminal gangs and people smugglers, risking and sometimes losing their lives. Some of them are fleeing conflict and persecution and others are seeking economic opportunity.
The humanitarian crisis in Syria has reached catastrophic proportions and is contributing significantly to the increased flows of people we are seeing across the Mediterranean and into Europe. More than 220,000 lives have been lost and 11 million people forced from their homes in Syria, often moving multiple times. Some 4 million people have fled from Syria to countries in the region, and 7.6 million are internally displaced.
The lack of effective law and law enforcement in Libya has facilitated the growth of smugglers and smuggling networks. The year 2013 saw just under 43,000 migrants making the sea crossing from Libya to Italy; this rapidly increased to 170,100 in 2014. Many of the people crossing the Mediterranean are fleeing conflict and insecurity, and it is estimated that at least 5% of migrants making the crossing die on the way. The UK’s priority is to stop the senseless deaths of people making these perilous journeys. Our assets in the Mediterranean such as HMS “Bulwark”, HMS “Enterprise” and our two Border Force cutters have played their part in the European response, helping to rescue more than 6,700 people this year.
Britain has also been at the forefront of the humanitarian response to the conflict in Syria from the beginning. To date, we have pledged more than £1 billion to help Syrian refugees in the region, making us the second biggest bilateral donor after the United States. This is the largest sum we have ever committed to a single crisis. As the humanitarian situation has deteriorated, the UK has scaled up its support. We are helping to provide vital services so that both those seeking refuge and the communities hosting them are better able to cope. Our aid has so far provided 18 million food rations, 2.4 million medical consultations and clean water for more than 1.6 million people. In addition, DfID has allocated £9.5 million from the UK Conflict, Stability and Security Fund to support local capacity and build longer-term stability. This support is reaching millions of people and has saved lives in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt.
The UK’s life-saving work in the region, however, goes beyond this critical and immediate humanitarian assistance. More than half of all registered refugees from Syria are children. We are now looking at how we can provide education for this generation. In 2013, alongside UNICEF and other international leaders, the UK launched a No Lost Generation initiative to give children who had lost everything a chance of a better future. In support of this, we have allocated £111 million to provide protection, support and an education for children affected by the crisis in Syria and the region.
As noble Lords will be aware, in addition to this, the Prime Minister announced earlier this week an additional £10 million per year to support education in Lebanon for the next three years. This will support 59,000 more free school places for Syrian refugees and vulnerable children. It will also provide education to 30,000 out-of-school refugees and poor Lebanese children. This amount doubles Britain’s planned investment in education in Lebanon over the next three years. Investing in education supports the aspirations of Syrian refugee families, helping them make the academic progress that will enable them to make a contribution to the region and ultimately return to rebuild Syria.
In Syria 4.6 million people live in areas where humanitarian access is extremely restricted. In response the UK co-sponsored and lobbied hard for the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 2165 and 2191 which enable the UN to deliver aid across the border without the consent of the Assad regime. Between the adoption of the resolutions and the end of August this year the UN and its partners have delivered 175 convoys across the border. These convoys of aid are helping to provide food, blankets, water kits and vital medical supplies to thousands of people in Syria.
Without the humanitarian support led and often shaped by the UK, many more refugees could risk their lives in the journey to Europe, so we are also taking action to provide support to those refugees closer to home. We have already provided sanctuary to more than 5,000 Syrian refugees since the conflict began. On Monday last week the Prime Minister announced that over the lifetime of this Parliament we will expand the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme to resettle up to 20,000 additional Syrians in need of protection, the costs for this scheme being funded through overseas development assistance for the first 12 months after arrival.
The Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme has prioritised those who cannot be supported effectively in their region of origin—women and children at risk, people in severe need of medical care and survivors of torture and violence. The scheme is in addition to those we resettle under other programmes which offer protection in the UK under normal asylum procedures. These other programmes focus on a wider set of nationalities—people from Iraq, Somalia and other countries. Over the coming months we will work with local authorities, the UNHCR and others to ensure we deliver on the expansion of the Prime Minister’s announcement.
While we are doing all we can to support people fleeing the region, we must not lose sight of the need to help the overwhelming majority of Syrians still in the region. Indeed, around 3% of the 11 million Syrians displaced by the conflict are claiming asylum in Europe. Most have sought refuge inside Syria itself or in neighbouring countries. We have already given more aid than any European country and more to the UN appeals than Germany, Netherlands, France, Italy, Hungary, Austria and Poland combined. Our commitment will continue, but we need other countries to step up.
The UK continues to play a leading role in the international community by encouraging our international partners to pledge more generously in response to the crisis. The UK has led a sustained lobbying effort, pressing other countries to follow our lead and increase their funding. Our efforts have helped to raise more than $6.9 billion for the Syria response over the past two years, including $1 billion raised at a ministerial consultation co-hosted by the Secretary of State for International Development at the UN General Assembly last September.
At the G8 summit at Lough Erne in June 2014, G8 leaders agreed almost $1.5 billion in additional contributions to meet humanitarian needs in Syria and its neighbours. In addition, the UK has lobbied hard to mobilise funding from other donors ahead of the third Kuwait Pledging Conference in March, which raised a further $3.6 billion for the UN appeal for Syria. Despite all these efforts, the UN Syria appeals for this year are still only 37% funded, and the 2015 UN appeal for Iraq is only 46% funded. That means limitations on food, water and urgent medical care, all of which puts pressure on people to leave the region. The immediate refugee crisis can be tackled only by effective, co-ordinated EU and international action supported by much-needed resources.
At the same time, dealing with the humanitarian crisis and ensuring aid reaches those who need it is not enough. We also need to take a long-term look at solutions to tackling the drivers of the crisis at source. Eighty per cent of refugee crises last for 10 years or more, and two in every five last for 20 years or more. This means children born in refugee camps today are likely to grow up in exile, away from home. It also means we need a step change in the way international communities support refugees, recognising that the current international model works for short-term support but not protracted displacement. DfID’s work is targeted to deliver, over time, more stable, secure and increasingly prosperous countries. In this work we are especially concerned by the particular needs of women and girls, who are affected disproportionately by poverty and crisis.
We should be proud that the UK has delivered on its legal commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on development assistance, becoming the first G7 country to meet this long-standing commitment. In Africa DfID is spending £2 billion in bilateral aid in 2015-16, of which £540 million is targeted at economic development and £360 million at humanitarian support. An additional £2 billion is being spent in Africa through our share of multilateral aid.
The World Bank predicts that an extra 600 million jobs will be needed globally over the next decade to keep up with the number of young people in developing countries entering the job market. At the Department for International Development, we have already refocused our priorities to be more jobs-focused and livelihood-focused than ever before.
In the long term, development assistance addresses the root causes of instability and insecurity by promoting the golden thread of democracy, strengthening the rule of law, establishing property rights and creating accountable institutions. This helps reduce inequality and provides economic opportunities for all. This in turn helps to build more effective states and reduces some of the pressures to migrate.
If people can find stability, prosperity and opportunity in their home country, it means a more stable and prosperous world for us all. The UK will continue to demonstrate the leadership we have shown throughout our response to the Syrian crisis to mobilise the international community.
I look forward to all noble Lords’ contributions this evening—particularly to my noble friend Lord Brooke’s contribution as he makes his valedictory speech. I beg to move.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is right to put the issue of migration in the global and longer-term context, but there are immediate issues to face. Part of our problem is finding the right balance between the heart and the head. The scale of global migration is so immense that it is increasingly difficult to manage. People living in poverty and insecurity see the good life outside their borders, hear from relatives and friends who have reached the promised land and, understandably, long to improve the conditions of themselves and their families. We in Europe, drawing on our Christian and Enlightenment traditions, are clearly a magnet, the envy of less happy lands.
The Motion is careful to avoid words such as “economic migration” or “refugees”. Some claim that it is difficult to differentiate between the two. From my experience, as both a barrister and a constituency MP, I beg to differ. Who, then, are the economic migrants? I recall, in the late 1960s, speaking to the then Immigration Minister, who had just visited Bangladesh. He had asked a large assembly of villagers how many would like to settle in the UK. A high proportion raised their hands. He, although of a very liberal and open disposition, was forced to reflect on his position.
The blunt truth is that we are a small island that is highly attractive to those around the world who have disadvantaged lives. We are overcrowded compared even with France. We in the UK and Europe cannot reasonably be expected to accept all those who suffer the effects of civil war. We could not, for example, accept the whole Tamil population of Sri Lanka after the troubles there. The number of Nigerians affected by the atrocities of Boko Haram can reasonably be expected to move elsewhere in Nigeria.
Clearly we cannot expect to have an open-door policy. If Germany and Sweden have until recently appeared to have had such, it can clearly affect us through secondary migration. It is claimed, for example, that many Somalis from the relatively peaceful Somaliland see Sweden as a staging post en route to the UK, where, understandably, they wish to join well-established communities. Do the Government have any concern about the ultimate intention of migrants who migrate to Sweden and Germany? Clearly, co-ordination at European level is vital. We should not pursue a narrow, unilateralist policy, which would only harm our broad negotiating position on EU reform.
If we are to have a coherent immigration policy in general, we must have a prioritised system. We must be firm on those migrants, however poor, from countries where there is peace. Those from the Balkans, for example, cannot use this emergency to jump on the Syrian bandwagon. The position of refugees is wholly different—in the case of Syria and some other countries, for example, where we have convention obligations. We must use all our compassion and experience from history to help this tragic people.
If the presumption must be against accepting migrants from safe countries, except those within the accepted current criteria, we must be generous to those who have a well-founded fear of persecution. We see in Syria devastated cities, the effects of barrel bombs and chemical weapons, and of the medieval brutality of ISIS. We have responded magnificently in financial terms, providing up to £1 billion. Yet, the UN has received only $1.67 billion of the $4.6 billion it needs this year. We must encourage those countries that are failing in their response. The UN humanitarian agencies are now overwhelmed. Will the Government join those who argue that such agencies should receive assessed mandatory contributions, as is the case with the regular UN budget?
What has been the response of the UK? After a bad start, the Prime Minister has had to respond more generously. If he rightly criticises other EU countries on their financial contributions, he should expect criticism from them on the numbers that he is prepared to receive. It is not either/or. The Prime Minister is right to concentrate on the solution for Syria, but for him to focus on the camps alone causes problems as certain minorities—Christians and Yazidis—are often excluded. There is an element of haste about his response, so that he is talking to local authorities only after the announcement. We have heard today about the gold command team. What is the structure underneath that at the regional level?
The UN speech by Mr Juncker on 9 September was a more generous note, but it begs many questions as to how the 160,000 refugees will be assessed, how many will be repatriated and so on. I notice that Australia has agreed to 12,000 refugees and the US 10,000, yet Saudi Arabia and the Gulf none. What are the prospects of the international community shaming the Saudis and their neighbours into a more positive response to their co-religionists?
One final thought: we are now seeing a new and widespread global migration. Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan may be the first, but there are many failed states on the horizon—Libya, Yemen and certain west African countries are already in that category. We must surely be prepared, with the international community, to meet potentially even greater challenges to our hospitality and principles. At present it is Hispanics from central and South America seeing the US as the promised land; Afghans looking to Australia; Burmese Rohingya Muslims fleeing south; or those from the Middle East and north Africa looking to Europe. The world is far from finding a solution to these increasing migratory flows.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord. I agree with so much of what he said, most especially the fact that the Government’s concentration on the refugee camps in Lebanon is necessary but insufficient. The noble Baroness’s speech, effective as it was, nevertheless concentrated on that as a cover for doing so little in this appalling humanitarian catastrophe that Europe is now experiencing. I declare an interest as the president of UNICEF UK.
It is not just the fact that many of us regard the Government’s policy towards this catastrophe as morally deficient, rather that it is also logically totally inconsistent. Take the Government’s main argument: that if we help the asylum seekers we will encourage more. That was the discreditable argument that the Government put to us last December, when they said that if we stopped refugees drowning in the Mediterranean, the consequence would be that we would have more. It was an immoral policy and one very soon discredited, as the Government saw.
A few months into the new year, as many of us predicted, we discovered that it did not stop more coming. More came, even more came, and even more drowned. Then the Government acted. They sent Her Majesty’s Ship “Bulwark” to save them. By the way, they saved them from the Mediterranean and then dumped them on the European mainland, where they were abandoned for Europe to deal with. We got the bit that attracts all the attention—the rescue by one of Her Majesty’s ships—but Britain had no part when it came to doing something to give them a future. One presumes that the Government decided to send HMS “Bulwark” and the other naval units to save people in the Mediterranean because they were convinced of the argument that it did not encourage others. How can it be logical for the Government to say that they sent HMS “Bulwark” to save people from the Mediterranean because it does not encourage further refugees, but they will not help those crossing the Aegean because it does? These two facts seem completely inconsistent.
The Government fail to understand the true nature of what is going on when it comes to asylum seekers. The Government think that to seek asylum is a discretionary activity: that you do it if you can be helped and you will not if you cannot. The Prime Minister seems to believe that to be an asylum seeker is rather like going to the theatre—that one does not do it unless one has a ticket. The reality is that it is not like that at all. These families are living in hell. They are living with the barrel bombs of Assad on the one side and the whetted knife of ISIL on the other. You do not have to provide them with bliss for them to want to flee from hell. It is not that they are drawn to us by the welcome; it is that they are drawn away from the terrible circumstances in which they find themselves.
If noble Lords listen to the Minister’s speech, and that of the Prime Minister, they will come to a second inconsistency. The Prime Minister’s Statement—the noble Baroness used the same argument—says:
“The whole country has been deeply moved by the heart-breaking images that we have seen over the past few days”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/15; col. 23.]
We know what those images were: they were that dreadful image of the body of a small child being carried up from the beach. One would think that if the Prime Minister prays in aid that tragedy his policy that follows would address it, but it does not. The Government then announce a set of policies that would have done nothing for that small, tragic figure, or, indeed, for the thousands—the hundreds at least—who still follow him and the many, presumably, who still die. If, indeed, the Government are genuinely moved by the plight of those shown in that picture—one suspects that their reaction might have been due to the fact that the picture appeared on the front page of the Sun, but perhaps that is an unworthy thought—they should let their policy address that crisis. However, they did not do so, and that was the case with the subsequent tragedies that occurred. This seems to me curious, to put it mildly.
The next curiosity about the Government’s policy is that although they have offered to take 4,000 refugees a year—Germany by the way is taking 800,000—which is rather fewer people than arrive on the Greek islands in one weekend, the vast majority of their effort is poured into the refugee camps in Lebanon. That is fine. Who can oppose that? Who can oppose providing resources for that? But here is the paradox: at a time when we are experiencing a tidal wave of asylum seekers from the tragedy in Syria, the Government put most of their energy into the camps where there are no asylum seekers at all. Indeed, those in the camps are well housed, well fed and secure. They are not comfortable; of course, they are not. Why do the Government do so much to help those who are not suffering from lack of shelter, accommodation and security, but do nothing for those who are desperate and, indeed, dying for want of those things and are tramping towards us in Europe? How can that be a logical approach to this crisis?
I sometimes wonder whether it is not the word “suffering” to which the Government object but rather “Europe”, because the one thing they will not do is anything which puts them in concert with our European allies as that would create all sorts of problems with their own Back Benches. Perhaps that, too, is an unworthy thought, but what explanation is there other than the fact that they will not contribute to alleviating a European crisis and will not join a European strategy? If that is the case, and perhaps we are right to be suspicious that it is, those terrible desperate thousands tramping across the dusty roads of the Balkans towards us are hostages of the Conservative Government’s right-wing Europhobes on their own Back Benches. If that is so, and one suspects it may be, then, irony of irony, they are hostages of the very people that the Prime Minister is hostage of as well.
Of course we should put money into these camps; it is necessary. However, it is not sufficient. Yes, we can be proud of what we have done to help those refugee camps but we should be ashamed of how little we have done—almost nothing—for the tide of asylum seekers who look to us for support and help. Here is the third odd thing about the Government’s policies. We, too, have our refugee problem. We have 3,000 banging on the gates of the Channel Tunnel. Whether that is a large or small number when measured against Germany’s 800,000 or the 60,000, 70,000 or 80,000 going to France depends on your point of view. However, this problem—theirs and ours—can be solved only within a European strategy. It cannot be solved by our acting unilaterally and alone, as we are doing. The only way this can be solved is by working together with our European partners. It is the only way it can be done, but this is the very thing the Government will not do. In not doing it, they act against this country’s best interests, diminish our Prime Minister’s bargaining power in Europe to get the kind of deal he wants and act contrary to the values of this country and against its noble traditions. In that blindness, they also miss one other fact: these refugees and asylum seekers arriving in Germany are all desperate but are not poor or uneducated. These are the educated people, the Ugandan Asians of our day. The German Government are happy to welcome them; of course, they are. Have noble Lords noticed how many of them can speak English? These people would benefit our country in the future.
I am not pretending for one second that this is not an immensely difficult problem to solve; of course, it is. It is a very difficult problem to solve. We will have to discuss it and come to measured and difficult agreements on this. Perhaps we will have to adapt some of the principles that we are now applying, but let us do so as Europeans together and keeping in touch with European principles of decency and humanity as much as we can.
We are moving into very turbulent times. This is a problem for the future as well. It is going to be much larger when global warming takes place. We have to start considering this in a more measured way than this Government are doing. I do not think there are many lights that will guide us through the years to come except our wisdom and humanity. It is a shame indeed that the Government’s policies in this matter are inconsistent, illogical, against our country’s best interests and counter to our traditions and values and I, for one, with some regret, have to say that they are morally shameful.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I advise the House that the Back-Bench advisory time is six minutes. We would be very grateful if noble Lords would consider that in order for us to finish at a reasonable hour.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the humanitarian emergency which is engulfing the whole of Europe is a complex and accumulative one—a phenomenon that has been building up for several years. If we have been taken by surprise, it is only because we were unwilling to face up to realities before they broke over our heads. It is a phenomenon which goes much wider than one country, Syria, and the refugees fleeing for their lives from the civil war there. Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans, Eritreans and Yemenis also meet the criteria for asylum under the UN refugee convention and we have an obligation to be willing in principle to offer them refuge. So our response needs to be as complex as the phenomenon itself. So far that response, like that of some other European countries, has been patchy and inadequate and has fallen well short of the needs of the situation. To use the words of the right reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, it has been thin.
Clearly, there needs to be a stronger, more powerful political response to the factors driving the current emergency: a more robust and better co-ordinated military effort against IS, including, I suggest, an extension of our air strikes into IS-controlled parts of Syria; a revived effort to bring about a UN-sponsored settlement in Libya, which could well require some deployment of UN peacekeepers; stronger support for the Governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan in their fight against their respective Taliban opponents and a readiness to renew the moribund efforts to achieve a political settlement in Syria. None of that activity will produce quick results, but without it we will continue to be like the Dutch boy putting his finger in the holes in a dyke.
On the most immediate and pressing problem of the handling of asylum-seeking refugees, I fear that we have not yet begun to find the right response, even if the Government’s reversal last week of their earlier unwillingness expressed in a debate on 22 July—the last day before the Summer Recess—voluntarily to take in more Syrian refugees is welcome. However, the numbers—20,000 over five years—are still pitifully small and compare poorly with the offers of others such as France and, above all, Germany. Why do we limit the offer to Syrians alone when there are many others such as Afghans and Iraqis persecuted by IS with every bit as strong a claim to our refuge? Why do we insist on extending our offer only to those in camps around Syria’s border and excluding all those who have risked their lives to get to Europe? On that point I share entirely the views of the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown.
The arguments about a pull factor are highly theoretical and are pretty unconvincing in the circumstances that now prevail. I hope that, in replying to the debate, the Minister will say that the Government will look again at all those issues. The Government have expressed pride, and rightly so, in the massive resources we have contributed from the aid budget to the refugees in camps around Syria’s border. The substantial increase in those resources now announced is particularly welcome, but more of those resources need to be devoted to education, health and the creation of economic opportunities for those in the camps—I was glad to hear the Minister recognise that—if the present precarious situation is not to become even more unstable and to feed further flows towards Europe. I hope the Minister can say a little more, when she winds up the debate, on those longer-term issues.
I will say a word about the European Union dimension to all this. Of course the European Union has not covered itself in glory in handling this emergency in recent months. There has been too much dither and prevarication. I remain doubtful that mandatory quotas are either desirable or viable. A much-enhanced voluntary effort is, however, essential, and I hope we will play a larger and more constructive role in that. I also hope that we will increase our contribution to FRONTEX and will be prepared to give asylum to some of those flooding into other European countries. If we want others to respond positively to our positions and our priorities for European policy, we would do well to respond positively to theirs.
In conclusion, this is a rapidly moving humanitarian emergency which still has far to run. We need flexible and humane responses, not ones driven by populist scare stories and xenophobic prompting. I hope that the Government will display that flexibility and will be ready to adjust our responses as the situation develops and demands.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I shall make a couple of comments and invite the House to think a little about the humanitarian basis of this debate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has just said, and the Minister said in her introduction, the scale is unprecedented in our times. The challenge, therefore, to be nimble is very great. I applaud the Government for the amount of investment that has been made in refugees and migrants. I also applaud the Government’s scheme to target the most vulnerable, including victims of sexual violence and torture, the elderly and the disabled. However, I agree with Lord Ashdown that because of the unprecedented scale we need to be generous in our approach and spirit. It is interesting that in the Financial Times today—as some noble Lords may have noticed—a number of senior business people in the City say that we should welcome migrants because of the skills shortage that our country faces. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, stated, there are many skilled and able people looking to come into Europe.
In Derby, where I work, we already have many migrants and the pressure on our inner-city infrastructure is enormous. Yet people are keen for us to be generous and to do what we can to reach out to people in such need. Churches are on the front line, administering to those who have already arrived. We have more than 600 people waiting for decisions on asylum applications. So we need to get organised if we are to take any more people. On 2 October we are organising a summit in our cathedral for MPs, local government people, faith groups and civil society, so that we can help the energy to prepare and be generous become organised and make a proper offer.
I invite the House to think briefly about the humanitarian basis of this debate and of our country’s policy. I am privileged to be a trustee of Christian Aid, which for 70 years has been reaching into these situations, and which began—you may remember—by helping refugees and migrants within Europe. Christian Aid is especially involved with those who are still in Syria. It tends to be the better-off and the well-organised who are leaving and the poorest of the poor who are left. I ask the Minister to consider—she mentioned this—how we can continue to encourage investment within Syria to help the most needy as well as those who are leaving.
My main point is about the humanitarian understanding of this debate. Humanitarianism is really based on the Christian understanding in Europe of the unique value of every person in the sight of God. In our modern, secular times that has become the human right of each individual. Because—sadly, I say, in brackets—it lacks the Christian understanding of sin, forgiveness, sacrifice and things that nuance that attempt at equality, it just becomes a simple right. It is a common secular theology in Europe that every human being is unique and precious, and that we should reach out to them, which is why the spirit of generosity is rising up in people.
We have seen what is happening with ISIL: the beheadings; the horrific and systematic sexual violence; the selling of women and girls, especially from the Yazidi tribe; stories of fighters buying young girls for as little as £16, abusing them and selling them on. I heard yesterday of a girl of 10 who died from internal injuries because she was raped so often by her captors. I heard another story of an ISIL fighter, who, before he rapes a girl, kneels down and prays, because he believes that he is fulfilling the will of God. I share these horrific stories because the people who ISIL are recruiting are being recruited to found a new state. It is a state based on those kinds of values, which are horrific for women and girls and for violence against the enemy. Those values are totally incompatible with what we in Europe understand as humanitarian. This is a bold attempt to establish a whole state and society on values contrary to the Christian ones, which, in their secular mode, are recognised throughout the world under the banner of human rights.
So there is an urgent challenge to us all—in this Chamber, in our Parliament and through our Government—to, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown said, cohere with Europe around a set of values that are humanitarian, whether we are of a religious or a secular background, because those values are vital to human beings being seen as unique and precious. We face a very well-organised and well-funded organisation that is trying to set up a state on a totally different and contrary basis. I encourage the Government to engage clearly with the organisation of aid and generosity towards refugees in such great need but also to take a lead in Europe in reaffirming our common European, Christian-based values about the rights of every person to be treated generously when in need, and as a unique and precious individual.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con) (Valedictory Speech)
My Lords, if one is setting off on a journey, it is a privilege to be sent off by a bishop. I thank the right reverend Prelate for the quality of his colourful send-off. I shall use his book Thomas Hobbes and the Limits of Democracy as a gazetteer for my return to private life.
Fourteen years ago, in October, in my maiden speech, I did not use my allotted span, but this evening I hope that I shall not unduly claim it back. Indeed, I must apologise for having proved, over the years, to be a lineal descendant of Autolycus in “The Winter’s Tale”, whose most famous line is as,
“a snapper-up of unconsidered trifles”.
I hope that the time left to me enables me to press for one practical point of information in this debate, and another final proposal within valediction. On the former, I am relieved that—once a Whip always a Whip—I share Her Majesty’s Government’s analysis of Britain’s current obligations and intentions in the present crisis. Her Majesty’s Government favour a Syrian-based, UN-assisted operation, one criticised by others in that it omits those migrants in transit. I should declare an interest—as I always do in charity-oriented debates—in that I control two small charities within the Charities Aid Foundation. With the national and international charities under the Disasters Emergency Committee now in double figures, small charities like mine are under constant pressure for donations, in present circumstances, from Sierra Leone in Africa to Syria in the Middle East, with the transit migrants in between. One significant and common, but not universal, factor that recurs is these mega-charities explaining to us that Her Majesty’s Government are doubling up the proceeds of their current appeal. However, this information always comes haphazardly from the charities and not from Her Majesty’s Government. It would greatly help if Her Majesty’s Government, or the DEC, would not only announce the practice regularly but say why they are helping a particular appeal in this way. Is it just to secure leverage or is it a method of research to test which appeals have specific public support, or both? Is it to establish a pecking order of need? Whichever it is, it makes for an inefficient map among small charities of where their money can make the most difference. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can shed illumination on this dilemma.
As to valediction, in my maiden speech in 2001 I paid the habitual tribute to the help afforded by the staff of your Lordships’ House in welcoming us. Fourteen years later, I quote the Queen of Sheba’s tribute in the First Book of Kings, chapter 10, verse 7:
“Behold, the half was not told me”.
My gratitude to the staff was beyond the telling of it. However, I have one suggestion to make in departure about those of us who contribute to the work of your Lordships’ House in this Chamber, the Moses Room and the committee rooms upstairs.
In the interests of brevity, I shall take the liberty of infringing the rubric in this final speech to call my parents just that, rather than having the mild confusion between “my late noble kinsman” and “my late noble relative”. They were, however, in 1966—seven centuries after Simon de Montfort’s Parliament—the first couple to sit on the Front Bench together in either House, although non-partisan honesty obliges me to say that they did so in opposition in the Lords whereas, within a year, Dr Dunwoody and his wife, Gwyneth, also did it together but in their case in government, and in the Commons, which was a no-trumps victory. It is in this instance ironic that when at home in the 1960s and 1970s I heard my parents discussing which professions were missing from your Lordships’ House, a key gap was then Dr Dunwoody’s own profession of doctor—since then remedied, of course.
Those of us who are retiring under the new dispensation will be doing so from a variety of motivations but there may be a common sense of regret or loss. One use of the new valedictory principle may be to allow a departing Peer to nominate their private hope of how his or her gap may be filled. It would have no statutory significance but may be interesting for those making selections later. For myself, I once followed my noble friend Lord Waldegrave as Civil Science Minister, when both of us had been classicists. He was far superior to me in both disciplines. Although I am conscious that in my time my party has produced the Chamber’s archaeologist and the Chamber’s vet, I am less conscious of our having produced a pure scientist. That would thus be my own nomination. If pure scientists prefer the Cross Benches perhaps, in the wake of the departure of my noble friend Lord Jenkin, we could at least have someone who had played a significant part in the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee.
Finally, as I come, after 38 years and 10 Parliaments, to what those who have ever sung “Abide With Me” in French will recall is known as le dernier rendezvous, I remember that my predecessor in the Commons—who was likewise the predecessor of my noble friend Lord Tugendhat—the late John Smith of Smith Square, the founder of the Landmark Trust, said that of all the human groups with which he had been associated, whether in school or university, in the army or in business, the one of which he was fondest were his colleagues in the House of Commons. Of course, he never came here and thus missed the spell of your Lordships’ House.
In closing, let me above all say—in familiar and oft-repeated words—thank you. I have been ever conscious of the hazards of such words since a member of my family wrote to me and said:
“The school did ‘Hamlet’ last week. Most of the parents had seen it before, but they laughed just the same”.
In this instance, the words of gratitude are wholly genuine and most enthusiastically true.
Lord Crickhowell (Con)
My Lords, I hope that I may be permitted a little extra time to pay what I fear will be an inadequate tribute to my noble friend who has just made his valedictory speech. I feel certain that I am not alone in feeling immensely sad that he is leaving after distinguished service in both Houses and making a contribution not just to politics but, among other things, to the national heritage, the arts, historic churches, charities and, of course, cricket. The tributes paid to him from all parts of the House yesterday after the Statement on Northern Ireland were an indication of the value of his work there as Secretary of State at a most difficult time. We are to be deprived of his wisdom but, perhaps even more, we will miss his wit and those historic and political anecdotes, of which he seemed to have a perfect recall and an endless supply. We wish him and his family many happy and peaceful years, in which I hope he will be able to pursue his passion for the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
Over 30 years ago, I bathed from deserted beaches on the island of Lesbos; today, lifejackets discarded by refugees cover the beaches. Lesbos has received about half of the 250,000 refugees who have reached Greece this year. The local population seems overwhelmed, threatened and increasingly angry. Similar scenes are found on Kos, where the body of that little boy was found, and on other Greek islands. Many of those who have risked the crossing, and a good many who have died, had been living in safety in Turkey but had obtained sufficient funds to pay the criminals to escape from the camps to what they believed would be a better life in Europe. I am sure that the Government are right to concentrate on those who are identified as most vulnerable by the UNHCR. That is the way to provide hope to those in greatest need, without simply providing an opportunity for exploitation and adding to the death toll. The Government have been right, too, and deserve great credit for the way in which they have directed this country’s massive financial contribution towards providing food, shelter, education and medical assistance to those in the camps. I particularly welcome the Prime Minister’s important speech in Lebanon this weekend, in which he committed further aid to Lebanon and to the 1.1 million people in the camps there.
Critics argue that the policy may be right but the numbers are inadequate. The target is likely to provide a considerable challenge to the UNHCR, to our own officials and to local authorities. One thing seems certain: over a five-year period, the situation will change. I hope that the Government will not set the target in stone. I was pleased that on 8 September my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon said that it was,
“an evolving situation and the Government will continue to review the situation in terms of numbers”.—[Official Report, 8/9/15; col. 1316.]
I must press Ministers for greater clarity about the plight of Christians who cannot be in the camps because of attacks by Islamists.
The Prime Minister, on 7 September, and the Home Secretary, in her speech the next day, did not say that those to be admitted would come only from the camps but a briefing note from the Whips’ Office uses the phrase “straight from the camps”. There have to be exceptions. My noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon said last week, in response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, that all minorities suffering such persecution,
“will be dealt with in the proper way, by ensuring that their vulnerabilities are protected and they are given the protection they deserve”.—[Official Report, 9/9/15; col. 1432.]
That did not offer much enlightenment. Pressed by my noble friend Lady Rawlings, the Minister said that “the plight of Christians” and other minorities “is being discussed”. On Monday, after the Statement, my noble friend the Leader of the House said, in answer to a question from the Archbishop of Canterbury, that,
“this is something for us to discuss with the UNHCR”.—[Official Report, 7/9/15; col. 1260.]
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us more information this evening and that Parliament will be kept fully informed of the outcome of the discussions.
The vulnerable are not confined to Syria and its borders. There were questions last week about the horrors taking place in the Sudan. Would I be right in thinking that these cases will be dealt with under the normal asylum procedures? Last year, 120,000 refugees were living in the UK, and 25,000 entered the asylum system seeking asylum in this country.
I have concentrated on vulnerable refugees: the 4 million in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, the more than 6 million displaced from their homes but still in Syria itself and those fleeing from brutal regimes in Africa. Like the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I believe that the situation created by the flood of economic migrants who have been pouring into Europe from the Middle East and North Africa is different. They have been coming in numbers that, taken together with the real refugees, are likely to have profound social, cultural, religious and economic consequences and create growing tension. We have to pursue policies that will discourage and reverse that floodtide of economic migrants. I support the Government’s policy, including the measures described by the Home Secretary last week, their refusal to take part in a European quota system and the new naval activity off the Libyan coast, for which I understand that we are now seeking United Nations approval so that we can deal with some of the criminal gangs before they take refugees on board.
Population densities, birth rates and job opportunities vary enormously from country to country. Germany, with a declining birth rate, wants more skilled and educated workers. Britain is densely populated and has absorbed a very large increase in immigrant numbers, so that facilities are strained. Even Germany temporarily closed its borders this week, and other countries in Europe are closing theirs.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, called for a more measured approach. His was a pretty emotional diatribe which offered few measured solutions.
I conclude by noting that Jordan has been remarkably successful in creating a buffer zone in southern Syria where large numbers of refugees have gathered in their own country. It would be an important step if it was possible to create a similar secure buffer zone in north-west Syria, and hugely helpful if the Gulf states, in addition to providing financial support, would take immigrants to ease the burden falling on Lebanon, in particular. As my noble friend suggested in opening this debate, other countries outside Europe need to play a much larger part.
Lord Desai (Lab)
My Lords, let me first pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. Knowing him has been one of the great pleasures of my life here and I shall always cherish his friendship and his wit.
Let me try a completely different and somewhat utopian solution to the problem at hand. As the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, said at the beginning, this problem has been going on for a long time. The war in the Middle East has been going on since, I think, 1973, but if not, at least since the beginning of this century. It will go on, it is not going to end. We are witnessing the consequences of the breakdown of the Ottoman Empire 100 years down the line, and they are not going to go away.
I think that the European Union can solve the problem, but it cannot necessarily accommodate all the people who are going to come. Indeed, it is a travesty for the European Union to believe that it has done anything to solve the problem. It is Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey who have housed more refugees than Europe has done or will ever do.
My solution is the following—it is very utopian, I agree. The European Union should go to the United Nations and propose a global solution to the refugee problem. There are sparsely populated countries in central Asia: Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Mongolia and so on. Their population density is one-hundredth of the population density in Europe. I would like the United Nations to arrange a transfer of as many migrants and refugees as possible, with the co-operation of those countries, to settle them in those countries. The European Union should provide financial support and encouragement for that.
As the noble Baroness said, the UK’s contribution to humanitarian aid has been fantastic, whatever people may say about our ability or willingness to have people come here. Europe’s strength is in resources—money—and diplomatic clout. Europe should go to the United Nations and propose that global solution with the co-operation of the receiving countries. We can then transfer a lot of people from Lebanon, Jordan or wherever to those countries. They are Muslim countries. These are co-religionists of the people leaving Syria and Iraq.
Everybody will tell me that that is not possible, but what is the House of Lords for if not to propose utopian solutions? That is my solution, and I hope that someone takes it up. If anyone wants more information, I can give it to them, but if I stop here, I will contribute three minutes to the debate this evening, and that is more valuable than anything I have said.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, first, I associate those of us on these Benches with the tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. We have appreciated all that he has done, especially for Northern Ireland, over the past years.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, spoke of the Middle East crisis starting in the 1940s or 1950s. I go back to biblical times. It has been there for at least 3,000 years, and the migration of the people of Israel from Egypt to the promised land is one of the first major migrations that we have heard about. I am told that about 50 million people in the world today can be put in the class of migrants. It happens in many places and over the years.
One of the first things that happened when I was a child—I do not quite remember it—was the influx of people from Germany into the UK in the late 1930s. Then there was what happened during and after the war: the migration from Poland and Germany. People went in their millions from one part of the world to the other. Then we had the division in the Indian subcontinent. It has been part of our lives to see people going from one part of the world to another. Every time, our hearts have bled. The world and the centuries go on. We know that 200 years ago, the total population of the world was 1 billion people. Today we are 7 billion people. In future, that will grow. It is a problem for our children and grandchildren. We must pray that they have the grace and the wisdom to tackle these problems in a more effective way than we have.
The Arab spring has become the Arab winter. There have been one or two biblical references here this evening. I think of the parable of the good Samaritan. On the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, that poor guy was left at the side of the road and two very important establishment figures passed by. I am told that when they got to Jericho, they set up a committee to defend travellers on that dangerous road, but they left the poor guy at the side of the road. The person who is praised, of course, is the one who took responsibility and took this person to an inn, cared for him and paid for him. That is what we must do. The basics have been spoken of this evening. When we see the pictures of thousands and thousands of people trudging along those railway tracks and along those roads; when we hear of the immense amount of money that has been spent in order to get a place on a boat that will bring them to some sort of hope, and how that hope is often just shattered, we look at this and say, “Is there anything preventing us from playing our full part and being the Samaritans on this occasion?”. How can we look at these people without thinking what it would be like to walk in their shoes? What would our children and grandchildren be like in all that suffering that is going on at this very moment as we are having this debate?
We owe a great debt to Angela Merkel, who has contributed so brilliantly to this situation. I would also like to quote Edward Kennedy’s words:
“But we can perhaps remember—even if only for a time—that those who live with us are our brothers; that they share with us the same short moment of life; that they seek—as we do—nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and happiness; winning what satisfaction and fulfilment they can”.
It is personal; it is a situation that makes us all weep. The Government do not realise that. I must not take up too much time, but what have we done? Okay, we are going to take 20,000 people over five years. That is 4,000 people a year, probably mainly in the same families. That is 1,400 or 1,500 families a year. The figures of the United Nations on Syrian refugees say there are 4,015,256 registered Syrian refugees. Can we not do better than 1,400 families a year? I am sure we can and that our people want us to have the hearts and the emotions of the Samaritans, not those who walk on the other side. I beg—I really do—those who have any influence with the Government on this matter: please remember that you are not speaking for the people of the UK. They have marched, held protest meetings and contributed. We want to be with them.
Finally, when they come here, as I hope they will, I hope they will find a hospitable immigration regime. I hope we will be able to allow them to work and not to have them in indefinite detention. I hope we will not send their youngsters back when they reach 18. There is a lot that we can do and a lot that our moral convictions oblige us to do, so we must be a welcoming people. Looking round the Chamber, I do not know where everybody here comes from, but I know that we are not people from our own areas. We have all been migrants or refugees at one time or another, so we should stretch out our hands and say, “Okay, we want to continue this, to bring hope to those whose lives are so hopeless and helpless at the present time”.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, as a former chairman of Medical Aid for Palestinians, I cannot let this debate pass without expressing my strong concern about the appalling humanitarian conditions in the West Bank and even more so in Gaza. They seem to have been tolerated—even ignored—for far too long by much of the international community. Today, however, I want to focus on Syria, a country whose affairs I have followed from a distance for nearly 50 years. I do not claim to go back to biblical times, but I was also there in fairly recent times as ambassador.
Humanitarian aid is essential, but it is also sticking plaster if we fail to achieve some kind of political settlement in that country and its region. What we are witnessing in Syria now is not just a humanitarian disaster: it is a destruction of an entire society, as indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, recognised. It is curious that for so long, Syrians have taken a pride in the diversity of their country, in their remarkable history and, unusually in the Arab world, in their links to Europe. However, they have had a very tough regime which did not hesitate to imprison them and even torture them if there was any opposition. People have lived in fear for 40 years of some six competing intelligence services, but they adjusted to it. The regime’s deal was this: stay out of politics, pay bribes as necessary and we will leave you alone. Another part of the deal, which is not often recognised outside of Syria, is that there was genuine freedom of religion and quite remarkable opportunities for women. That was far from perfect, but a million miles from today’s disaster.
Those of us who are concerned about the humanitarian situation in the Middle East have to be very careful about what we now advocate. In particular, calls for the overthrow of the present regime are extremely unwise, as my noble friend Lord Wright of Richmond has pointed out on many occasions. Let us be clear: the regime and its supporters are by no means all Alawites, and they are fighting—literally—for their survival. A collapse of the regime would lead to the most appalling revenge killings on all sides, and total chaos would result. The fall of the regime would be an enormous psychological and religious boost to ISIL, which is our main enemy in that region. What is more, it is the most ruthless movement among the opposition movements, and it will be bound to increase its power in that region, and perhaps even come to dominate much of what is now Syria. Humanitarian efforts are, of course, essential, but they risk being blown apart by the misdirected policy on the part of western nations.
Fortunately, perhaps, Russia and Iran have signalled very clearly that they can see the dangers and they are striving to avoid them. If we are really concerned about the terrible humanitarian situation in Syria and its neighbours, we must press for some kind of modus vivendi among those groups in Syria that share our overriding concern about ISIL. It is ISIL that poses the most serious threat to the region, to British interests at home and abroad, and to any prospect of improving the humanitarian situation in the Middle East. For goodness’ sake, let us keep our eye on the ball.
Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)
My Lords, on returning home on Saturday evening, I switched on my television to catch up on the news, but instead caught the revellers at the Last Night of the Proms, singing:
“Land of Hope and Glory, mother of the free”.
It rather upset me in the circumstances. Sadly, we no longer have cause to be proud of ourselves as a nation after the last few weeks. In the eyes of the world, I am sorry to say, the Conservatives have turned the nasty party into a nasty Government, with their failure to act quickly in the present humanitarian crisis. On reflection, however, I do not entirely share that view; I hope to be constructive, and I commend the Prime Minister for his visit this week to the Middle East and refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan.
Last year, I visited Zaatari camp in Jordan and this year I saw several camps and enclaves of refugees in Lebanon, a country which has taken more than 25% of its population again as refugees in the last few years—a burden it simply cannot bear. These countries, together with Turkey, have taken hundreds of thousands of people, while UNRWA, which deals with Palestinian refugees, and UNHCR, which deals with the others from Syria and Iraq and elsewhere, are chronically underfunded. I congratulate our Government on being the second largest donor to UNRWA after the United States of America, but it is not nearly enough. That is the problem. Most refugees want a safe place to protect and feed their families until they return home, but the camps are overflowing and life in most of them is very grim. The fitter and braver ones head for Europe—and who can blame them? Our response should be on three fronts.
First, it is not enough to take a few selected families to come and live here. They are safe in the camps and should stay there. We should take the number requested of us and there must be European Union agreement on this. The United States of America should be involved and also the United Nations. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, who has left the Chamber, recognised this as a global problem and of course it is. This evening I heard that refugees have been tear-gassed at the borders of Hungary with Serbia. We should be ashamed of what is going on in our continent.
Secondly—this is my main request—we and our allies must step up the funding to UNHCR and UNRWA immediately, and ensure that those bodies can do a much better job as long as is necessary. It needs action by the USA, the UN and our country to raise the estimated £2 billion now needed for a really good network of safe, well-run camps in the Middle East allowing people to stay close to home. As the Minister said, this could ensure that the children in particular receive proper food and education, and safety from the traffickers, over the next few years. It could prevent young people being attracted by extremist groups. I know that both suggestions are very expensive but remind the House that Trident costs £2 billion a year simply to maintain, and replacement would cost probably a hundred or two hundred times that amount—I do not know. We have the money. I know where I would rather spend it.
Thirdly, and as the noble Lord, Lord Green, mentioned, before the civil war, there were refugees from Palestine all over the Middle East. More than half a million were in Syria, looked after by UNRWA there. They had been looked after for decades. I have been unable to establish how many Palestinians are among the people fleeing Syria at this time, but have the Government pointed out those Palestinians to the state of Israel? More than 26,000 people were immigrants into Israel and welcomed last year alone, mostly from affluent countries, so apparently it has the room and wealth to cope also with refugees. Last week on “Thought for the Day”, I heard the Chief Rabbi express quite rightly what I have experienced: the generosity of the Jewish people. He called for a paradigm shift in the response to this crisis. Finally, here is Israel’s opportunity. Give Palestinians fleeing war once again the right to return. Sadly, miracles no longer happen.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, the Syrian humanitarian crisis and the international response are moving at an incredible pace. Only last week, Germany had something of an open-door policy towards refugees, yet this week Schengen has been suspended there and in Austria. Hungary and, tonight, Slovenia have closed their borders. Now new routes are already opening up as refugees and migrants try to circumvent barriers in their path. I hope the Minister will be able to update the House on what the European Union has done so far to help the Balkan countries cope with what could be the new reality there.
There is an urgent need for the international community to get ahead of the crisis on all fronts, rather than repeatedly playing catch-up. In that regard I will make three brief points. First, we must assume that we have not yet seen the worst of the crisis. Food rations for refugees have been cut dramatically. According to the World Food Programme, a Syrian refugee receives $13 per month—that is, 50 cents a day—to eat and survive on. The UN has warned that a further 1 million Syrians could soon be displaced by violence. Winter is coming, inevitably producing further human suffering. The massive shortfall in aid risks a crisis of even greater proportions, as people leave both Syria and regional camps in search of safety. After four years in which the gap between the aid that is needed and that which is provided has grown, surely the time has come to name and shame the countries that are not pulling their weight—unlike Britain.
Secondly, this crisis will not be resolved by mass resettlement. Neither we nor Europe as a whole can receive all the Syrian people who seek security. Even if we were to empty Syria entirely, the threat to the region and to our own security would not go away. The only way to end the human suffering and protect our own security is by taking the diplomatic route, possibly without preconditions, and by being prepared to back that diplomacy with the threat of hard power if necessary. When a policy pursued is not working—and I would argue that the current policy is not—we should have the courage to admit that, examine the reasons for its failure and come up with a better one. British diplomacy excels in putting forward workable solutions to complex crises in conflict. We saw it in the Balkans only 20 years ago, in our lifetime. Therefore, I hope that at the UN General Assembly next week in New York, we will see Britain actively and visibly putting forward new proposals with our allies for how to achieve a negotiated solution and a political settlement that brings stability and security, justice and accountability. There is a great need for that visible leadership and diplomatic momentum. Therefore, I hope that the United Kingdom will advocate and secure a visit by the United Nations Security Council to the region to see the humanitarian impact of the crisis and begin to build diplomatic consensus as an important practical and symbolic gesture. It is astonishing that, after more than four years of conflict, the UN Security Council, the very body that bears the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, has not done that yet.
Thirdly, we will need as much leadership and political will as we can muster in the coming months, and Parliament has a crucial role to play. Two years ago, there was a vote in the other place on limited and proportionate military action to save lives by deterring further use of chemical weapons in Syria. The coalition Government were defeated. At the time, the so-called ISIS was in its infancy; today it is believed to hold sway over half of Syria’s land mass and is drawing recruits from across the region, from Europe and as far away as Australia. At the time, there were around 1.7 million refugees; today, there are more than 4 million. Then there were 4 million internally displaced persons; today, there are more than 7 million. Who can argue that things are not getting worse and worse by the day? I hope that those who voted against the Motion will ask themselves whether a critically important opportunity to change the course of the conflict was lost. I sincerely hope that, if there is another vote to take strong but necessary action, for the sake of international peace and security and our own common humanity they will not say no again. To stop the Syria free fall, we shall need more than our humanity—we shall need leadership and a plan. Today the world is in desperate need of both.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, who always comes to this House well prepared with facts and figures. She usually goes out of her way to try to defend the Government, but she said this evening that our present policy in Syria is not working. That undoubtedly qualifies as the understatement of the evening. Our policy in Syria has been extraordinarily inept and extraordinarily unedifying.
As soon as the insurgency against the regime of Bashar al-Assad started, for some extraordinary reason the Government were determined to get involved with it, and the Prime Minister personally so, it appears. We sort of more or less declared war on Bashar at that point, and we have been in a state of war with him ever since. At the time I thought—and I continue to think—that it was a very bizarre decision. There does not seem to have been any particular national interest of ours in doing that; we should not deploy our forces frivolously. Of course, Bashar is an unpleasant dictator with blood on his hands, and much more blood now as a result of the insurgency against him, of course. But if that was a criterion for taking military action against a regime, we would be involved in at least a dozen wars overnight—all the way from Equatorial Guinea to North Korea—so that cannot be the explanation. We cannot say that we got involved because we wanted to avoid a refugee crisis, because it was the fighting that produced that crisis.
Most peculiarly of all, the decision flew in the face of all the lessons that I thought any sensible person would have learnt from Iraq and Libya—that trying to change regimes in other countries is always a problematic exercise and should never be embarked on unless one has available a viable and credible alternative regime to impose. That was clearly not the case in this situation, so I remain mystified as to why we did it. What is clear is that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, has just said—in words softer than mine, but the meaning is exactly the same—it has been a complete failure. The Government also made series of mistakes in political analysis and seriously underestimated the resilience of the Bashar al-Assad regime. We now find ourselves continuing to fight a war on two fronts in Syria, one a voluntary war started quite gratuitously by ourselves and the other an involuntary war, declared on us and the rest of the western world by Daesh. That is a very serious matter, but it cannot be very clever to engage in two wars at the same time, when one was inevitable.
That is the inept part of the story; the unedifying part of the story is the way in which we have handled the refugee crisis over the past few weeks and months. Until the PR agenda changed—because that is what changed everything, when the picture of the dead child on the beach was all over the newspapers—the Government were taking a very tough line, saying that they were not going to have any significant numbers of Syrian or other refugees here at all. The Government were completely obsessed by maintaining their arbitrary 100,000 person a year immigration total. Then suddenly, because the PR equation changed, they started making all sorts of declarations about receiving refugees and doing something for them. We have actually discovered that what they are doing, which the Prime Minister described as extraordinarily generous, was extraordinarily ungenerous, taking 10,000 or at most 20,000 over five years when other countries, as has already been said in this debate, are taking far more. What is more, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, pointed out very well, we are not actually taking the refugees who are most vulnerable, those who are on the road and have no accommodation or food and are in serious danger of dying on their travels. The refugees in camps are obviously not very comfortable in them, but at least they do not face those threats quite so immediately.
One has to wonder why we have not taken up our quota under the EU system. The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, said that he thought it was because the Government could not bear to do anything that looked like co-operation with our EU partners, because it would be unpopular with the Eurosceptics. I have to tell him that that is an appalling suspicion to have—that in a matter of life and death a Government would be influenced by party-political considerations of that kind—and I am very sorry to have to say this, but in my heart I cannot think of any other explanation for their conduct.
It is a very unedifying situation, and one in which we have no influence with anybody. We lost a lot of influence with the Americans because the Prime Minister was foolish enough to say to Barack Obama that we would get involved in Syrian operations without mentioning that he needed a House of Commons vote that he was not likely to get. We clearly do not have any influence with the EU now, with the way we have behaved, and we do not have any influence with third parties. That is very important as it is very important in this crisis that we encourage the Gulf states to take refugees from Syria. That is the most obvious solution because those economies are systematically dependent on immigrant labour and they are common cultural and linguistic areas, so it would be an obvious thing to do. But they are not taking any refugees; they are just paying cheques to keep people in camps, just like we are doing. Since we are doing that, we have no influence with them whatever. That is the situation we now find ourselves in.
I do not want to come before the House and just criticise. I want to say a couple of words about what I think we should be doing instead. First, we should regard the Daesh problem as a completely unique situation, which it is. People are fleeing a murderous horde of fanatics who will kill them if they can. We must open our doors and prevent that happening. Secondly, we should under no circumstances allow this to be a precedent, so that anybody who comes from a civil war or an area where there is a lot of violence can immediately claim asylum in the European Union or this country. It is not a realistic possibility. Thirdly, we must look again at the need to co-operate with our European partners. I think Mrs May has learnt the lesson that we cannot just say, “That’s all right—we aren’t in Schengen. We’ve got the Channel, so we don’t have to worry about people in Sangatte”. She has now belatedly realised that Sangatte is a problem for us.
Actually, it is a problem for us if these refugees come into southern Europe or the Balkans. We need to make sure that there are proper controls on the common external frontier. We have every interest in making sure that there is a robust common external frontier. I believe we, together with our EU counter- parts, should invest considerable naval resources in patrolling the Mediterranean to make sure that these poor people coming through on boats run by criminal organisations—criminal gangs in many cases—do not get through to the mainland of the European Union. They are of course rescued and given food and water when necessary, but they are towed back or taken back to Libya, where they mostly come from. We should negotiate, which I am sure is feasible, with the various warlords who now govern the Libyan coastline to enable us to do that. We need to have robust measures where they are required. We need to have a humanitarian response to this completely unique and horrifying Daesh phenomenon, and we need to make sure that in future we have well-thought through and coherent policies in these areas, which we certainly have not had up until the present time.
Lord Williams of Baglan (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this debate. The Middle East and north Africa is an area where I have worked and lived in the past decade. Sadly, it is a region where I have seen at first hand a very considerable deterioration of the humanitarian situation. In looking at the causes, the Syrian civil war has to come top of the list. It is a conflict that has now lasted longer than the Spanish civil war and indeed even longer than the First World War. To this can be added the turmoil that has ensued in Libya after the overthrow of the tyrannical rule of Muammar Gaddafi. Thirdly, there is throughout the region a deep-seated regional malaise stemming from the failure of the Arab spring to produce any real advance in reform and representative government.
In looking at the humanitarian situation in the region, I welcome the visit of the Prime Minister earlier this week to Lebanon and Jordan to see for himself the dire situation of Syrian refugees in those countries. He is one of the few European heads of government to have done so. I also pay tribute to the work of DfID in those countries and in the wider Middle East. I hope also that the Prime Minister’s visit will go some way to reducing the toxicity of the refugee issue in much of our media and, sadly, some of our politics. People and, indeed, Governments need to be reminded that 94% of Syrian refugees are living in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey with only 6% currently in Europe.
However, that number is likely to increase as the refugees see no hope of a political settlement in Syria and rising instability in the countries of refuge in the region. In Turkey, we have sadly seen yet again renewed conflict between the Government and the Kurds. Lebanon has been without a president for two years, kindling fears that instability from neighbouring Syria could affect it. I remind the Minister that Hezbollah is an active fighter in the conflict in Syria, aiding Assad’s regime, and at any time that could have dire consequences for Lebanon and the refugees sheltering there.
One of the reasons that there is an increased flight of refugees is that Syrians have lost hope in the international community’s ability and, indeed, willingness to make any progress in handling the Syrian crisis.
When we are tasked with taking note of the humanitarian impact of developments in the Middle East, we must remember that we are not talking about a disaster like that which befell the Nepalese people in the earthquake in recent months. This is a man-made catastrophe that requires urgent diplomatic attention. Here I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Helic. The UN General Assembly meets next week. I expect the Prime Minister, like other heads of government, will be there. We need a diplomatic initiative. This conflict can be solved only through diplomacy, not through military force. Here the Security Council has great responsibility, and because the United Kingdom is one of only five countries that are permanent members of that council, the responsibility is particularly heavy. I hope that the Government, led by the Prime Minister, make some real diplomatic efforts in New York next week.
Lastly, I ask the Minister whether the Government will urge Gulf countries to take Syrian refugees. Their resistance to doing so is not understood in this country or elsewhere in Europe, and could all too easily affect our bilateral relations with the Gulf.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Baglan. I also welcome this debate. Much of what I was going to say has already been said so I will not repeat it, but I want to touch on a few points.
The Minister outlined the catastrophic level of suffering: 12 million people have been forced from their homes. That is more than half the population of Syria. This is a country with one of the most ancient civilisations, and we have been watching it being hollowed out before our very eyes for the past four years. As a result of the conflict there is also widespread unrest in neighbouring countries that for the past four years have absorbed the vast majority of the refugees.
Turkey, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, just mentioned, has close to 3 million refugees now. As a result of the widespread absorption of so many people in such a short time, Turkey has been destabilised, as had been predicted and warned about in previous years. I do not have time to go into the conflicts and challenges faced by people in Turkey, which I know something about and I have been following very closely, but there has been a negative impact. The positive steps to the peace process with the Kurdish community, which we welcomed, now lie in tatters. The landscape there has been irreparably damaged and affected.
Turkey has welcomed those 3 million refugees regardless of their religion. It is a predominantly Muslim country but it has not looked at people’s faith; it has taken in people who have come to their borders. The Turks have opened their borders and been criticised for doing so, but nevertheless they have taken people in.
So neighbouring countries have been absorbing this. For four years it was not a European problem but a regional one, and Europe was quite happy to allow neighbouring countries to bear the brunt of it. However, this has now reached saturation point, and the camps are full and grim. Now that this has come to the shores of Europe, the debate, as the noble Lord has just said, has become quite toxic and at times quite inhumane. I have seen various reports talking about migrants coming here to seek a better life. Can we please be clear? When we talk about Syrians in particular, they are fleeing not only the terrifying barbarity of Daesh; they are also fleeing Assad’s barrel bombs and chemical weapons. These are not economic migrants but refugees. The use of the word “migrants” to describe people fleeing Daesh is absurd, inhumane and misleading.
As we have heard, it took a photograph of a little boy on a beach in Turkey to start to change public opinion. I welcome that change—I think that we were all shocked—and it was clear that the outpouring from the British public was different from what we had been hearing from our Government. Many others have drowned, but that one event was a turning point. Far more people are beginning to realise that this is not an immigration problem but a humanitarian disaster.
We have seen that the Germans have welcomed the majority so far and have shown incredible leadership and humanity. However, as my noble friend who is not in her seat mentioned, we are now seeing incredible, chaotic and shocking scenes in Hungary and in some of the Balkan states, where people are fleeing and moving across central Europe to seek sanctuary. It is particularly shocking that Hungary, for example, has said that it will take only Christians as asylum seekers. As an EU nation, Hungary appears to share very little of the values and spirit, of the tolerance and generosity shown to Hungarians fleeing Soviet aggression by other countries including the UK. Today’s reports of tear gas and water cannons being used against people including women and children who are fleeing aggression, war and poverty is absolutely shameful. In behaving in that fashion, Hungary is not fit to be a member of the EU.
This is the biggest refugee population from a single conflict in a generation. It is a global issue, and the population needs the support of the world. Instead, they are living in appalling conditions, sinking deeper into trauma and poverty or drowning in their thousands. Many of those in the terrible conditions in the camps have understandably had enough of the hand-to-mouth existence, lack of education, poor medical care and lack of a future for their children. Had any of us been in those camps for years with little hope, I wonder whether we would also have taken to the seas and looked for a better life. I know that as parents we probably would have—I certainly would have.
I do welcome the extra support and help that the Government have announced. That is important and we need to carry on with it. However, the Government’s pledge to take 20,000 people over the next five years, although welcome, is not enough, as others have mentioned. Today I have read reports that in Jordan cuts to aid are forcing more refugees to leave the camps and come to Europe. It is ironic that the Government have been warning us often and repeatedly that we are under threat from Daesh and that we must do more to stop some Muslim people from going to Syria to join it, yet when it comes to allowing sanctuary to Syrians fleeing the murderous Daesh we close our doors, pull up the drawbridge and refer to them as migrants. This makes no sense.
The UN, the EU and the West have failed in any positive engagement to secure a diplomatic resolution. We on these Benches believe that the UK should work with the UN to resettle its fair share of refugees already in Europe. The UK’s fair share would be established by considering a wide range of criteria including population, GDP and asylum-seeking cases. I was pleased to hear that the UK is doing more, but the UNHCR today said:
“Individual measures by individual countries will not solve the problem but will make an already chaotic situation worse”.
We must show more leadership, more collegiate working and work with other nations to bring about a diplomatic resolution.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this debate and describing in some detail the Government’s response to developments in the Middle East and their impact. I was particularly pleased to hear the reference to the work on education for children, because given the scale, the nature and the extent of the problem it is important that there are long-term responses. Education is important in terms of economic and social prosperity for the future so that we do not have a lost generation. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could assure the House that these initiatives will not only continue but be enhanced and look at the quality of the education provided.
We have heard in this debate that the humanitarian impact of the developments in the Middle East and north Africa is unprecedented in scale, suffering and tragic deaths but the responses to this crisis have been slow and inadequate, both by the UK and by the European Union. Conflict in Syria is approaching its fifth year, and in other parts of north Africa and the Middle East the situation has been deteriorating for some time. It is only the recent tragedies that have stirred consciences and some limited action.
We heard earlier that this is a complex and challenging situation that requires, as the Prime Minister said in his Statement on 7 September,
“a comprehensive approach that tackles the causes of the problem as well as the consequences”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/15; col. 23.]
However, we have to recognise that these responses to the long-term issues have to be multifaceted and we have to involve the United Nations, the USA and even Arab nations. Here, I very much associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Baglan.
The dire humanitarian consequences that we witness daily require immediate action to avert all the suffering of refugees and the strain on some of the front-line states in the European Union and the neighbouring states. It is recognised that the UK is the first major economy to meet the United Nations target of spending 0.7% of GNI, and the UK is the second biggest bilateral aid donor for the Syrian crisis. Of course the Government’s contribution of £1 billion in aid in relation to the Syrian conflict and the neighbouring countries of Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, where Syrian refugees are, is commendable, as are the efforts in collaboration with others to rescue migrants and deal with smugglers. The Government’s practical assistance to EU partners, by providing assistance, expertise and support to Greece, Italy and Bulgaria through the European Asylum Support Office, is welcome.
However, the emphasis of the Government’s approach is predominantly on bilateral assistance. There is complete reluctance by them to be part of the European effort to respond to the humanitarian crisis within Europe. Greece and Italy in particular are confronted with exceptional migratory flows. The situation in Hungary, Austria and Germany is not good, either. There are humanitarian crises within Europe that are urgent and require exceptional action. Having said that, I have to say that Europe has not covered itself in glory in the way in which it has responded. Even on the question of resettlement, the Government’s policy began to change only in early 2014. Prior to that, their response was to commit large amounts of humanitarian aid to the relief effort but not offer resettlement to Syrian refugees, either as part of or in addition to their annual resettlement quota. Since early 2014, there have been incremental changes. It was only on 7 September that the Prime Minister announced an extension to the scheme, with a plan to resettle 20,000 Syrians over the next five years.
The Government have set their face against any involvement in the relocation scheme, voluntary or mandatory, proposed by the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, in response to a debate in this House on 22 July, said:
“The Government have no plans to opt into any relocation scheme, whether voluntary or mandatory”.—[Official Report, 22/7/15; col. 1202.]
The Government’s objection that a mandatory scheme will change the EU approach to asylum by reducing national control over immigration is understandable. Indeed, it is right that immigration control should be the responsibility of member states. However, it is regrettable that the Government’s approach to a voluntary scheme is negative. In the report produced in July by my committee—the EU sub-committee on home affairs, which I chair—we urged the Government to take part in the negotiation on the proposals on relocation, provided that it is voluntary and is part of developing a coherent and co-ordinated approach to current and future situations.
Collective actions are the only way in which to deal with the current humanitarian crisis facing the EU. The lack of co-operation will undermine the EU’s ability to develop a coherent and adequate response. I would therefore like to hear from the noble Baroness why the Government have set their face against participating in the EU relocation scheme.
Lord James of Blackheath (Con)
My Lords, I come to this issue from a slightly different direction. I live in West Sussex and am looking at what is happening there as a result of all this. There is huge zeal and enthusiasm to be called upon to do something to help. In the absence of any direction or instruction from anyone, local people are trying to make it up as they go along. They are getting into a muddle and need some help. It is time that the Government started to actively participate in getting communities to prepare to take in refugees, if or when that happens. If it is not going to happen, they need to say why not and do something else. If it is, they need to get prepared for it.
In the network of villages that comprises West Sussex, there is an assumption that they will be high on the list of places that will be called upon to act. They want to act. However, there are four questions we need to think about. First, how many can they take? Secondly, how will they feed them? Thirdly, what will happen to the education system locally? Fourthly, what will happen to interfaith relationships? Each question needs a separate response, and they are floundering at the moment on all scores.
I will deal first with the issue of food. The assumption is that, because we are basically a hangover from the Second World War, we will go back to something like the “British restaurants”, where people could get a halfpenny meal a day with products supplied by the Government. People in the villages are assuming that nothing will be paid towards the meals and they will have to provide them free from their own pocket, getting no food from the Government. They are quite happy to cook and provide the meals, but they need to know where the food is coming from because there is not enough money in these poor villages for people to pay for it themselves.
At the moment, we have a network of fetes and little garden parties going on to raise money. Every local artist is putting up his work to be sold. At the moment, I have to book an appointment to have a cup of coffee with my wife because she has become the head of the sales desk for these pictures and is very hard to get hold of. They are making a little money, here and there, but it is not going to be enough to feed the population for more than a week or two when they get there. Can we please have some decision from the Government as to what they actually intend to do if and when refugees are sent to the villages? At the moment, it is causing chaos.
When the refugees get there, what are we going to do with regard to the education system? We have a network of mostly faith schools; Church of England and Catholic. Will those schools be required to take the young who come in? If so, I can say right now where the first local civil war is going to come. It will come on the day that any Islamic or Muslim family declines to send its girl children to school. That will lead to protests on the streets, which will get very violent, very quickly. People need to be told what to do about that problem before it happens. In the case of schools for boys under the age of 10, are they going to have to take in, say, two or three Islamic boys? In that case, what will happen during the religious training part of the day? Will an imam go in to do that? In that case, do they take the Christian boys out and let them play football while that is happening? Somebody needs to produce a code of practice for all these things and think it through.
The worst of all the issues that I am looking at came to me last week, and puts a significant demand upon the Church of England to do something. People have said that of course they are going to be very hospitable to these people and think that we should give them our churches to turn into mosques. To which, having picked myself up off the floor, I say, “Are you mad? Just think that one through for a moment”. They answer that they will give them the church for three or four days a week and keep it for themselves for the rest. Fine, I say. But Christmas Day this year is on a Friday. Are we going to have midnight mass at 11 pm on the Thursday? What will be done with the mulled wine stall outside the church, which usually makes such a roaring profit? “Oh, we’ll give the profits to them as well”, they say. That is a nice solution but it is unrealistic.
The church has to get off its backside and tell people what to do about all these faith issues, so that they know how to cope with them before they make fools of themselves and destroy the last vestiges of our own link with our own culture and society down the ages—it is coming if we do not do something about it very quickly. I ask the Bishops to please take that message back to his Grace and the synod and ask them what they are going to do.
This is a real problem and it needs attacking. There is so much good will to make things happen properly, but we are doing nothing to use what is available to us, which is an enormous reservoir of good will, enthusiasm and determination to help. Please, Government, start this ball moving now, and please, church, do something really positive and effective.
Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)
Like so many others, I have been saddened and outraged by the plight of those fleeing from tyranny. I am also outraged by our Government’s wholly inadequate response. My grandparents, like so many others, were themselves refugees. At the end of the 19th century, they fled here to Britain and like many were forced to endure physical and verbal assaults, as were the Huguenots before them and the Chinese, West Indians and many others. These were not Britain’s proudest moments.
We are now confronted with an equally sad situation. Genuine refugees cannot wait. They clamour for help. We have to heed their cries of pain. They cannot wait while Europe debates, however important that may be. This represents a real test of Europe’s capacity. Of course we cannot stand aside while all this happens. Joint European agreement is desirable, but that is for the longer term. Now is the time to respond: we have to act now. We cannot wait. We cannot delay. Young children, some of whom we saw on television as young as three, are drowning and they cry for help. That horrible sight is but one facet of a deeply unhappy event. Germany, France, Italy, Greece, Holland and many others cannot be expected to bear the whole brunt of this crisis. We must reject the utterly cruel and selfish posture of the Hungarian Government. It is unbelievable.
My plea today is that we here in Britain must do much more. The position adopted by the Government to reject the pleas of the refugees and then to come forward with an abysmally small number over five years will simply not suffice. There is on the part of the Government an attempt to play for time, and unhappily time is not on our side. The Government therefore must react now and not tomorrow.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as deputy leader of Pendle Borough Council, for reasons that will become obvious. The leader of the council and I have issued a welcome on behalf of the people of Pendle for up to 20 families, at present, to come and live in Pendle and we have told the Government that that is the case. My question for the Minister is how many local authorities in England and Wales—or certainly in England—have made an offer to welcome refugees from Syria? I am told that it is quite a few, but I do not know the number. Do the Government have the details of these people and are they communicating positively with them?
I want to talk a little about Syria. The Prime Minister, in one of his statements on refugees from Syria—which have swung from one extreme to another but have included some remarkably silly comments—said about a week ago that our job was to provide jobs and security for people so that they did not need to leave. I think that he has now been to a refugee camp in Jordan and perhaps now understands why people are leaving. It is not about jobs, it is about security.
When Parliament debated whether this country should take part in bombing operations in Syria and the House of Commons voted against it, the suggestion was that we should take military action against the Syrian Government—Assad’s people. Now it seems that the people we are most against in Syria—for very good reason—are those who belong to ISIL, or Daesh, and the debate is whether we want to take part with the Americans in attacking them. The fact is that Syria is being wrecked. When the Prime Minister says that the displaced people he spoke to in the refugee camp in Jordan wanted to go back to Syria, I am sure that that is the case. The question is not whether people want to go back to Syria, it is whether it is possible for them to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, who is not in his place at the moment, talked about the problem of there being two sides in Syria now and that we are against them both. The world is no longer a simple one of goodies and baddies; it is much more complicated than that. I have to say that there are more than two groups in the country, and that is complicating the situation. It used to be said that my enemy’s enemy is my friend, but it is more complex than that in Syria since some of the groups seem to be on the same side as more than one other group and then turn against them. We are not quite sure what is going on.
The Syrian Government have their army based heavily on the Alawite sect, which is Assad’s group. It is said that of the 250,000 men of fighting age in Syria on that side, one-third have already been killed. I do not know if that statistic is true, but that is what is being said. It is certainly true that an increasing number of Alawite people on the coast and in Damascus are leaving Syria, partly because the young men do not want to be called up and partly because they are frightened of the future. The main opponent used to be the Free Syrian Army, which still controls a lot of territory in the north-east and south-east of the country. It was the original opposition and it includes defectors from the Syrian armed forces, but in some areas it is now working with ISIL/Daesh, paving the way for an ISIL takeover. But whatever happens, people are leaving because of the fighting that is going on.
Then there is ISIL/Daesh itself, comprised as we know of hard-line fundamentalists, which now controls about half the area of Syria. It started off by working with the al-Nusra Front, which is an affiliate of al-Qaeda, but now they are fighting each other. So not only are they fighting the Syrian Government, they are fighting each other and probably anyone else who comes along. ISIL is now the strongest opposition group, with its headquarters based in the city of Raqqa in the north. The dilemma the Americans must face, as would we if we were to take part in military combat there, is that if we attack ISIL/Daesh, we help Assad. If we attack Assad’s troops, we help ISIL/Daesh. There appears to be no way through that. The al-Nusra Front, otherwise known as Jabhat al-Nusra, is still active in the same region as the Free Syrian Army. Its troops are fighting each other, ISIL, Hezbollah and others up there. Hezbollah is active in the north-west and controls territory on behalf of Assad, but it has its own agenda, and as we know it will turn on anyone if circumstances change. But whatever happens, Hezbollah is also driving refugees into Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, first, because people do not like the regime and, secondly, because of the violence.
I turn to the Peshmerga Kurds. Two parties have been successfully attacking ISIL in parts of the north. The Turkish Government, who were being urged to join in the military attacks on ISIL, had been conducting bombing raids in Syria, but it seems that for the most part they have actually been bombing the Kurds because that is part of their own domestic dispute. The whole thing is unbelievably complicated. Iran has put troops in on behalf of Assad, allegedly including 15,000 special forces personnel. Russia has an unknown number of people in the country, while Qatar and Saudi Arabia are supporting the rebels.
The country is a shambles, so if people want to know why the problems in Europe are not going to go away and why the refugee camps are going to grow and grow, and why the situation is not going to be solved easily, they have to look at Syria. Somehow all the regional parties, including ourselves, must get together to try and stop the war. I do not think that anyone has the slightest idea of how to do it, so we had better get used to the fact that the stream of refugees coming across Europe will continue. I do not know how many there are at the moment; no one seems to know and there might be half a million on the move in different places. Moreover, as the winter comes, the stream is going to increase.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I think we have to be grateful to the brave TV camera men and women and reporters who bring this crisis before us every day. Yet the images are so bleak, and the crisis is almost beyond our island imagination. Such a degree of hardship thankfully does not exist in our society. We cannot conceive of a world without anything at all to live on, yet we have to make judgments which we think can somehow change it.
Last week, the Prime Minister announced he would at last increase the numbers of vulnerable Syrians to be resettled. Some of us, along with the Refugee Council and Amnesty, have been pressing the Government for months on this. We were told that, up to March, only a handful, 183, and by June, only 216, had been resettled under this scheme. Media reports undoubtedly changed the Government’s mind, and we now, as a country, have responded modestly to the plight of refugees in the region and to UNHCR’s call for resettlement. I fully endorse what the Minister says about bringing stability to lands in conflict, but the Government’s otherwise welcome Statement failed to address the key question of Europe. As others have said, it is astonishing that we appear to be doing nothing to help thousands of Syrians and others stumbling along railway lines towards us.
One might ask why the UK has decided to stand apart from other member states and always hide behind the Schengen and Dublin agreements. I believe, with the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, that this was in part a soothing message from the Government to some of their Eurosceptic Back-Benchers that, for the moment, they do not want to spell out EU membership too clearly. I fully accept that Europe has not got its act together, largely because of the resistance of eastern European members. Hungary’s use of tear gas and barbed wire is incomprehensible to those who remember 1956, when its own refugees were pouring across the Austrian border. Unfortunately, Mr Orbán does not represent the view of Hungarian people any more than, say, Mr Rosindell reflects his own Front Bench in another place. Monday’s EU meeting at least showed that there is unity among the richer member states—we are meant to be one of those—which will inevitably have to share the responsibility. Much more, however, as has been said, must be done at the United Nations level. I wonder whether fear of numbers lies behind the reaction of some critics and Eurosceptics. The numbers are daunting, but surely there are not so many that they cannot be contained within and around Europe. We have to rely on crude estimates from UNHCR and FRONTEX, but we know they are six-figure numbers. The EU would like us to contribute now. Is that unreasonable?
I recommend doubters to examine the UNHCR list for refugee applications compared with populations in Europe. Sweden tops the list with 7.8 per 1,000 in 2014. Hungary is next, surprisingly, with 4.2, then Germany with 2.1. The UK is way down the list, at 0.5, which means only one refugee applied for asylum for every 2,000 of our citizens. If you compare our total population to recognised refugees, the number is of course lower, and the absorption of an annual 5,000 is barely noticeable. As Hilary Benn said in another place last week:
“The fact that we are not in Schengen does not mean that we should opt out of our responsibility to stand shoulder to shoulder with our European friends and allies in playing our part”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/9/15; col. 427.]
I assume that that still forms part of Labour’s foreign policy, but we will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, on that.
It is a pity that Lord Moser is no longer with us to join in this debate. As a teenage refugee himself from Nazi Germany who was cruelly interned here during the war, he said that he discovered his love of numbers by counting his fellow internees. He went on to run the Central Statistical Office and an Oxford college, besides making many contributions to education and music. He is already much missed on these Benches. I also add my own thanks to my friend the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for bringing good humour to our debates over so many years.
Perhaps the Minister can help us with numbers. She cannot answer for the Home Office but she will know, and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will remember, that this country has already been generous to an earlier generation of boat people, having received more than 24,000 refugees from Vietnam, who were resettled over time by local authorities. My main questions relate to her department. Was DfID fully consulted on the decision to take money out of the aid budget? What will be the consequences for other DfID programmes? As my noble friend Lord Hannay said, why should Syrians be singled out when there are so many other nationalities involved? What about Kurds and Iraqis—indeed, those who come across the Middle East through Libya, Turkey and other countries? What about eastern Europeans? Are Kosovan or Afghan refugees to be treated differently? These are difficult questions but they will have to be answered at some point. The Balkan states are now receiving EU funding but are still dealing with the aftermath of their own civil wars. The Syrians are special now, but other priorities must come up in future.
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this informed debate and to have listened to the valedictory speech of my noble friend Lord Brooke, although it is tinged with great sadness that he is leaving us.
Five days ago, Arwa Damon, a journalist covering the refugee crisis for CNN, wrote:
“Some assignments fill you w/such sorrow U can’t imagine genuinely laughing again”.
The plight of thousands of refugees fleeing terror and poverty has touched so many. It is hardly surprising that countless people want to help. Just yesterday, Amir Khan set off from Bolton with a convoy of vehicles bound for Greece. People have given money, clothes and food. They have even offered refuge in their own homes. We all want to do something—to do more—but this is a catastrophe with no easy solution. I am afraid that in the not-too-distant future we will have some very difficult debates and some hard decisions to take over the future of Syria and the role that we play. We will probably need to look seriously at the provision of safe havens in Syria.
I will spend the rest of my time speaking about a particular group of refugees and their unique plight, already touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Green, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge. In doing so, I declare my interest as president of Medical Aid for Palestinians and as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy for Jordan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Before I do that, I ask my noble friend the Minister: what will happen to the refugees who have found their way to Europe and are now trapped between countries? I understand very well and sympathise with the Government not wishing to encourage people into the hands of the traffickers, but are we as a country offering practical help to the refugees who find themselves stranded? What, ultimately, will happen to them? When we take in the Syrians from the camps will we continue to offer the vital help to Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, which have so selflessly welcomed those in need?
I, too, was delighted when the Prime Minister went to see with his own eyes what is happening on the ground. His visit to the refugee camps on the Syrian border in Lebanon earlier this week, followed by a meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan, has highlighted the valuable and crucial work done by the UNHCR and its partners in the Lebanese and Jordanian camps to support those fleeing war in Syria.
However, one of the most vulnerable populations in the region cannot access these services. Palestinian refugees in the Yarmouk refugee camp just outside Damascus, fleeing the horrors of siege and assault by ISIS and the Syrian regime, have no access to the proposed resettlement programmes proposed by EU countries, which leaves them with the only option of putting their lives in the hands of traffickers. Before the Syrian civil war started in 2011, Yarmouk, established in 1957, was home to 148,500 registered Palestinian refugees, more than half of them under the age of 25. In the four years that have followed, 3,000 are estimated to have been killed in the conflict and 18,000 Palestinian civilians are still living in Yarmouk, including 3,500 children.
In addition to the £1 billion the Government have so generously given towards refugee programmes, they have now pledged to resettle 20,000 of the most vulnerable Syrians living in the camps. This is most welcome but will not help those who cannot register with UNHCR. Palestinians are prevented from accessing the safety of resettlement because they cannot register. This leaves thousands of refugees languishing in the remains of Yarmouk with no access to proper healthcare, regular food or clean water, and with an outbreak of typhoid. As Chris Gunness, UNRWA’s spokesman, so starkly observed:
“Yarmouk is at the lower reaches of hell”.
As well as those in Yarmouk, another 460,000 or so registered Palestinians, many of them Christian, remain in Syria and are in continuous need of humanitarian aid. Borders are closed to them and this drives many to make the perilous journey through Turkey or across the Mediterranean in search of a safe home and a basic standard of life, placing themselves at the mercy of the sea traffickers. These are the very people we see daily on our television screens.
The particular vulnerabilities of Palestinian refugees and their sensitive status in the region compound the already stark and violent devastation they share with Syrians. It is absolutely right that we as a Government should provide vital support for vulnerable Syrian nationals but we should also ensure there is life-saving sanctuary and assistance for all vulnerable people fleeing conflict in Syria, including Syria’s Palestinian population.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
The Prime Minister said that,
“we must use our head and our heart”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/2015; col. 23.],
as he set out a staggeringly inadequate response to the refugee crisis, and then threw in news of drone attacks on individual UK citizens in Syria. The drone attacks were neither discussed or ratified by Parliament but were described in the Statement as an “act of self-defence” to kill a named individual in Syria who had been intending to murder British citizens. While that is not the subject of tonight’s debate, it deserves more interrogation on another occasion. But what is important for this debate is the conflation of these two issues. In conflating them, the Prime Minister chose to evoke fear of the “other”. It appears that the head of the Prime Minister was trying to divert a nation whose heart had been broken by the sight of three year-old Aylan Kurdi dead on a beach.
In the last several days, without going out of my way at all, I have been privy to a number of conversations about refugees from Syria. A couple with young children discussed how they would manage if they opened their home to refugees, how long they might stay, whether they would have to teach them English and be responsible for administering their immigration status and so on. At no point did they consider the discomfort to them or their young family, the cost of putting food on the table or the enormous burden of living with people in a traumatic state, estranged from their birthplace. They were looking at how, not whether, to open their homes to strangers in need. In another, a small group of teenagers studying to be professional chefs discussed how they could set up a soup kitchen. These young people were planning recipes that would give Syrian families far from home the comfort of the familiar. They worked out how they would raise money, shop, cook and serve on a rota, because this would be in addition to their studies. They were looking at how, not whether, to feed the influx.
Then there is my own mother, a refugee from Europe given safe haven in this country with my grandmother while her father hid in occupied Vichy. Perhaps, in the tradition of the House, I should here declare my interests. My family have been political migrants, economic migrants and refugees no less than six times in four generations. My mother, her parents and a single cousin were what was left of her family after World War II. They were granted asylum; others were not. She has donated and she has petitioned, but what does a woman in her late 70s do when her Government do not provide for this generation’s refugees the same safe haven that saved her life and the absence of which cost others theirs? She is looking to her Government to work out how, not whether, to save a life.
To find the balance of head and heart, the Prime Minister must use his head to fulfil what is in the hearts of the British people, who cannot unilaterally save, feed or welcome refugees into their homes but rely on Her Majesty’s Government to create mechanisms that enable them to do so. I share with the noble Lord, Lord James, a desire for action, although his anxiety about Islamic contagion is unfounded. We are the second largest bilateral donor in the region, and, as the Minister set out in her opening remarks, the Government are committed to a long-term political solution that might one day stem the flow. Neither of these approaches, however, is the answer for the tens of thousands of refugees who are, right now, in dangerous transit from somewhere to nowhere.
In setting out what he considered to be a comprehensive approach of causes and consequences, the Prime Minister said nothing about separating foreign policy from our arms trade; nothing about working for a pan-European approach; nothing about destroying the market for human trafficking gangs by providing safe passage; and nothing about our own responsibilities for military interventions and chosen alliances that have contributed to destabilising the region.
The Prime Minister’s Statement had no apology for the language of swarming; nor was there an explanation for why we operate a “Not in my backyard” refugee policy. It failed also to address UK citizens whose families and friends come from the conflict zones, who feel alienated by the Government’s response and worry about what it says about their own place and identity in this country. We need a comprehensive approach, but this is not it.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, that this is an excuse not to take more migrants. The resettlement figure is simply too little over too long, and in refusing to accept resettlement from Italy, Greece and Hungary and using their opt-out to avoid signing up to a common EU plan, the Government are simply adhering to the ideological prejudice, or xenophobia, of those who have this Government on the back foot about Europe and immigration.
These refugees, who have escaped violence in their own country, risked their lives on their journeys and find themselves pressed against both the literal and metaphorical razor-wire fences of implacable European nations, including our own, are no less deserving and arguably more vulnerable than those already settled in camps. They are—as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby said—equal, unique, precious and human.
UK citizens in their thousands are having conversations up and down the country like those I alluded to, from the powerful and privileged to those with very little who are willing to share that very little with desperate strangers in need. Our citizens are not bleeding-heart liberals but pragmatic and practical. They do not want this crisis on their conscience. We said “Never again”; this is “Again”, so until we have filled up every bedroom that is offered, we have not done enough.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I, too, would like to be associated with the tributes paid to my noble friend Lord Brooke. In cricketing terms, he has carried his bat and scored a century in his last innings.
My speech is not about the plight of refugees, which I recognise, but about how to stop the war, eradicate ISIL and make it possible for the people to return and live in peace. During the Recess, I decided to study Saladin, guided by a book recently written by John Man. Saladin faced not dissimilar problems to the ones we do today. His answer was to provide single-minded leadership that united Sunni and Shia factions, with the objective of throwing out the Franks—that is, the West. His methods were a combination of force and soft diplomacy, which succeeded only because they involved—I emphasise this—Sunni and Shia. The challenge is not just a Middle Eastern one. It affects much of the world including China, India and Russia, all of whom face the danger of this radical, fanatical, vicious and fundamental Muslim sect. We need, I suggest, to analyse dispassionately the context.
First, in relation to Syria, this is the fourth Sunni-Shia war. Assad and his Government will not collapse because they are supported by Iran, Hezbollah and other Shia factions, plus the Russians; that is the reality. Secondly, we in the UK have to admit that we made some errors. We made a fatal error on 20 November 2012, arising out of the Doha conference, in recognising what we thought was a pro-western, modern Sunni faction opposed to Assad when we had no idea who they really were. We really should be ashamed at our total diplomatic failure to anticipate this. In fact, it turned out that the vast majority were Sunni jihadists, with some ISIL and a few western-educated Syrians. Thirdly, it does us good to reflect on our own disastrous Arab spring policy: in Libya, where we managed to destroy all law and order; in Egypt, where our interference nearly resulted in the Brotherhood fanatics taking over; and, sadly, even in the Maldives, which I know well, where having promoted a UK-educated Maldivian we have ended up with a jihadist threat there as well.
Why do we not reflect for a minute on what happened in the Second World War? It cannot have been easy for Churchill to decide to sit down to discuss how to attack Germany and deal with Nazism, when we know from history that there was very little rapport between him and Stalin. However, they worked jointly to defeat the common evil. That common evil is now ISIL, and it is on ISIL alone that we should all be focusing. That includes using Assad’s Syrian forces. All of us—Sunni, Shia, Turks, Kurds, Russia, the Western powers, China and India—must eradicate ISIL. It can be done. The House will know that I have been deeply involved in Sri Lanka for some 50 years. In May 2009, what was then the worst terrorist group in the world, the Tamil Tigers, was obliterated there. If we do not do this, the world will suffer; in particular, the West will suffer. So we must think again about Assad and the Shias. We need them all. We need to reflect on what Churchill faced and how he acted. We need to involve the great powers of Russia, India and China. We need to listen to those of our noble friends who have detailed experience of Syria and that part of the world. The noble Lords, Lord Wright, Lord Kerr and Lord Green of Deddington, know that area of the Middle East in depth.
We need to switch off the engine of publicity, particularly in the West. We need to be brave enough to ban any marches in favour of ISIL. It is a proscribed group, and therefore every flag-waving ISIL supporter is flouting the proscription and we must not be weak, but act. Defeat ISIL and the refugee problem will fade away as people return and rebuild, ideally helped by what I hope will be the equivalent of a modern Marshall plan.
The real question is: who will provide the leadership and soft power diplomacy to bring together Sunni and Shia Muslims to make the eradication of ISIL happen? In my view, somehow or other, that leadership must come from the Muslim world and a rapprochement between Sunni and Shia.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, this has been a long and worthwhile debate. I have found myself very much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, and my noble friend Lord Hannay, but this evening I want to ask two questions. Will the Government give greater attention to the needs of refugees and displaced people living outside the official camps? Secondly, will they seek to redirect the total aid from Europe towards the Middle East and the northern half of Africa? These questions arise from visits that I made with colleagues to Lebanon in March and to the Kurdish Regional Government and the Jazira canton of north-east Syria in May. I have also had news from friends working in Tunisia and Jordan.
At great risk to themselves, Lebanon and Tunisia have each taken in about 1 million refugees. The KRG have coped with huge numbers of those displaced from the rest of Iraq. The aim should be to make all those people, both those in camps and those outside them, as self-sustaining as possible. That means education and training for all, but especially for the young. It would also help to prevent the camps becoming permanent.
I want to urge the case for redirecting the huge volume of aid given each year by Europe. As a number of speakers have mentioned, we have to meet the needs of those who have already reached Europe, most of whom cannot be repatriated. They deserve to be welcomed, as the Pope and many bishops and other faith leaders have requested. They will require language assistance and help to settle into many different societies—above all, for family reunion. Here, I mention two practical points. A Europe-wide tracing service would help families find their separated members, wherever they may be. Secondly, a Nansen-type passport or visa would enable them to apply for reunion and for protection.
We need to ask ourselves why so many leave home and risk dangerous journeys. The reasons are wars, oppression, lack of government, drought and poverty. Many thousands come from the Horn of Africa, the Sudan, the Central African Republic and other countries around the Sahara. At the same time, from Morocco to Pakistan the demography is almost the same: 30% or more of the population is under 30, but they have far too few opportunities to work. That is true even for graduates.
Europe can, I am sure, cope with large numbers of new arrivals, and should do so, given that in some of our countries the population is ageing and declining. However, it is in all our interests that the northern half of Africa and the whole of the Middle East should be prosperous. If they are not, there will be endless pressure to enter Europe at a pace that would destabilise European societies. There is ample scope for combining the resources and skills of Europe with the oil wealth of some Arab states. In this way, a large pool of investment capital could be created to generate jobs for the rising young generation. Locals would benefit just as much as refugees and migrants. We should start on this even while wars and conflicts continue to rage. I call on the Government to re-examine the following needs: war survivors outside official camps; camp dwellers; new arrivals in Europe; economic migrants; potential movers; and the unemployed young. Will they do so urgently, together with the European states and the EU Commission? Having assessed the available resources, will they then seek partners in the City of London and with the Middle East sovereign wealth funds? This could be the greatest job creation and resettlement exercise ever seen.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, this has been a vital debate, and I am glad that the Government agreed to table it. I know that this required some distinct encouragement from my noble friends, including my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness. It is surely not by chance that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, chose this important debate for his valedictory speech. I thank him for his life’s contribution to public service, not least in this House.
Contributions have been of a very high order. The Minister laid out clearly the Government’s position in her wide-ranging speech at the beginning of the debate, and I thank her for that. I hope that when she replies, she will do her very best, as I am sure she will, to answer all the main questions and themes that have been raised, with the possible exception of the most technical questions. It is less useful in terms of how this House operates to receive a letter some time later, copied though it might be to the Lords Library, responding to a debate. It is far better and more transparent to have the answers in Hansard, easily accessible. I am sure that she and her wonderful officials will endeavour to assist us in this regard.
High on the news agenda this summer have been those whom some have termed “swarms” of migrants or “marauding” migrants: the terrible scenes of overcrowded boats plying their way across the Mediterranean. We were shown the appalling sight of the little boy lying face down on the Turkish beach. I could hardly bear to look at him, or his smiling face or that of his brother in earlier photos. I think of his poor mother, who could not swim and did not want to take a boat at all. How desperate she must have been. I think of the Canadians who refused his family asylum.
We have to put a human face on refugees, to recognise that they are as us and our own children. Our common humanity was emphasised so effectively by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and my noble friend Lord Roberts. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in her extraordinary speech, injected great passion and urgency into this debate. I hope that we have now moved beyond the use of words such as “swarm” and “marauding”, but are we seeing an effective answer to a hugely pressing crisis?
We know that the refugees are from war-torn and desperately fragile states: above all, at the moment, Syria, but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has pointed out, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan. My noble friend Lady Tonge and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, emphasised the particular plight of Palestinians, so many of whom have spent their lives in camps. The people traffickers do not care about those whom they traffic. Many die and many women are raped. Supporting development in fragile states has never been more important. In 2004, the UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change—of which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was a notable member—rightly pointed out in its report, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, that, as I often quote:
“Development and security are inextricably linked. A more secure world is only possible if poor countries are given a real chance to develop. Extreme poverty and infectious diseases threaten many people directly, but they also provide a fertile breeding-ground for other threats, including civil conflict”.
Is that not crystal clear today?
Under the coalition Government, the UK finally met its commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on aid. Liberal Democrats Michael Moore in the Commons and Jeremy Purvis—my noble friend Lord Purvis—in the Lords then ensured that this was put into law, with Royal Assent on the last day of the last Session. I am very glad that we did that but the UN statement also speaks of the necessity of countries working together for international action, with engagement through the UN not only on long-term development and security but also, in this instance, on seeking a political solution in the Middle East. The noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Desai, and others made very clear the necessity for such international action, which is so lacking in the United Kingdom’s approach. The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, knows a thing or two about conflict and refugees. She rightly argued that the current policy is not working and that the UK must engage more at the UN. However, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, have possibly different views on military action in this instance. My noble friend Lord Greaves showed how complex this is.
Right on our doorstep, are we working with our EU partners? Clearly not. Here we have been very laggardly, as so many have made clear. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, demanded an answer. We must hear that. To tackle the crisis in Europe and the war in Syria, it is critical that the UK works with our EU partners so that we play a central role as decisions are made. The Government’s total reluctance to do so not only damages our reputation but limits our ability to shape the EU reaction. It limits what we are doing to help those fleeing the terrible situation in Syria, as well as jeopardises our later campaign on the EU referendum, as my noble friend Lord Ashdown also emphasised. How can the Government thus endanger our future, as well as those who are in this plight? Various noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Ashdown and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, strongly suggested that this is simply to manage Conservative Back-Benchers. We need to lead, not reluctantly follow.
We welcome the increase in resettlement of refugees from camps in Syria and the region, but it is too little too late and does nothing to tackle the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Europe. As my noble friends Lord Roberts, Lady Tonge and Lady Hussein- Ece made clear, this may involve only just over 1,000 families a year. It should not be an either/or choice. We clearly need to tackle both problems. Interestingly, my noble friend Lord Ashdown and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby emphasised not only the need for generosity but also the economic benefit we could gain from the skills the Syrians have to offer.
The Government should opt in to the relocation programme proposed by the EU Commission president. Can the Minister assure us that the UK is able to opt in to take refugees who arrive in the UK, despite what her noble friend Lady Stowell said the other day? That includes accepting a small number of refugees who are already in Europe, but also seeking better ways to manage the EU’s external borders and strengthen the EU asylum process.
On the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, there are rules for working out what proportion each country might take, based on a number of criteria that he mentioned, as my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece said. Not being involved means that we play no part in devising those rules. As we know, the conflict in Syria has affected the whole country and led to millions fleeing it and millions more being internally displaced. Many of those fleeing have ended up in the refugee camps in the surrounding region. As my noble friend Lady Tonge pointed out, the UK under the coalition Government became the second biggest humanitarian aid donor in the region, and I am very proud of that. I am glad that this is continuing. We know only too well how destabilising it is to have millions of refugees in the fragile countries around. We must do our best to assist them. As she will know, we took precious few into the UK from those camps and, at first, the Prime Minister would take none. It was only with pressure from his deputy, Nick Clegg, that that policy changed at all.
Here I wish to address the aid budget. I note what the Chancellor said about using the aid budget more directly in the UK's interest, which has a rather chilling sound. As the UN High-Level Panel made clear, development is important for global stability, affecting us all; it is not something that it makes sense to view only as involving limited UK immediate interests. I note what has been said about using ODA for refugees in the UK, and I realise that it is permissible, but it is a concern. Can the Minister tell me when the aid budget was first used to support refugees in the UK? Can she tell me how much was used each year in the last five years to support refugees in the UK? Does she accept that the ODA budget cannot be used to integrate refugees in a donor country’s economy? What are the implications if they are to be so integrated? I do not find an adequate answer either in DfID’s annual reports or accounting to the OECD. Can she tell me what happens to the support for refugees after the first year has concluded? What will be done to ensure that they do not fall on hard-pressed local authority budgets after that first year?
The UK has a long history of supporting the most vulnerable, and reference has been made to what happened in the Second World War, when of course we accepted 10,000 Kindertransport children, one of whom is a Member of this House. So what are we doing now?
This has been an extremely important debate, and I am glad that pressure secured it. The Government have rightly been commended for their action in supporting refugees in the region—but, from all sides, the Government have been condemned for inaction in inadequately supporting refugees in the United Kingdom and for inaction internationally, and especially for inaction in the appalling inability to work with the EU and to help to lead in the EU to resolve this crisis, with a terrible effect on refugees themselves but also in terms of our very place in Europe. Why should our European partners help us to win that referendum when it comes down the track? There are very big questions here about our shared global future. I am not optimistic that we will get those answers tonight, but I can but hope.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on his valedictory speech, and thank him for his four decades of public service to this country. He has made a huge impact on politics in the United Kingdom, and on behalf of the Opposition I would like to wish him very well in his retirement.
The crisis in the Middle East and north Africa has created a humanitarian disaster on the borders of Europe, which has now spread into Europe itself. We know that the conflict in Syria continues to be by far the biggest driver of migration, but the ongoing violence in Afghanistan and human rights abuses in Eritrea mean that 71% of the Mediterranean Sea arrivals are from just three countries. Getting aid into Syria is becoming increasingly difficult, and humanitarian agencies are finding it extremely hard to provide food and basic provisions within this damaged country, so many people have had to move out of their country simply to survive. This situation will become more critical as the winter months come on.
The Minister outlined that in Libya the lack of government and lawlessness has meant that half a million people are using that country as a launch pad to cross the hazardous Mediterranean. Iraq continues in a quagmire of violence, and the situation in Yemen is increasingly desperate. According to the UNHCR, the number of forcibly displaced people worldwide reached 59 million at the end of 2014, the highest level since World War II. So, yes, this is a humanitarian disaster that Europe is having to cope with, but let us not forget that the brunt of migration around the world is borne directly by countries adjacent to the areas of conflict and human rights abuses, many of them desperately poor countries.
While the vast majority of people have stayed in the region, one of the features which distinguishes the current situation from other serious humanitarian crises in the past is that affluent people have been affected by this crisis. Many have the means to pay for their travel and, unfortunately, become subject to the whims and caprices of human traffickers who are exploiting this situation for all it is worth, but it would be wrong to define all those who are travelling as the fittest and wealthiest.
There is no sign in Syria of the causes of this mass exodus stopping. Military intervention would be risky and would throw up all kinds of new and dangerous issues in an extremely complicated environment. There are no simple answers to stopping the number of refugees, and therefore we, in the international community, must accept that we have a moral obligation to support those in desperate need, not just in the immediate region but in Europe and our own country, despite it not being part of the Schengen area.
Nobody can deny the UK Government’s generosity in supporting camps on the border of Syria. We understand that it is far better to help people near the conflict area, thereby preventing dangerous journeys and making it easier for those people to return if things improve. The statistic quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on the percentage of refugees from Syria being helped in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey is worth repeating; it is 94%. But now that people are on the move, countries on the borders of the EU, such as Greece and Hungary, are under considerable strain. Greece is under profound economic pressure, and it does not seem fair that accident of geography determines how many asylum seekers each nation must bear. In the Greek islands alone, 30,000 people are currently asking for sanctuary and help, including 20,000 on the island of Lesbos—the same number that we are offering to help over the course of five years.
Despite the Government’s generosity to fund camps in the region, their response to the Europe situation has been unacceptable. The fact is that the Government misread the views of the British public on this issue, and a determination to dance to the tune of the anti-immigration lobby has back-fired. The Government are, I know, already working with our European partners to challenge the criminals who are trafficking these people and taking advantage of their desperation, and we need to support Europol and police forces across the EU to do more. How would we co-operate on these issues if we were outside the EU—who knows?
We welcome the deployment of HMS “Richmond” to operations in the Mediterranean, but let us not forget that the work of this vessel will be limited to searching for and seizing smugglers’ vessels. It is not, as a government Minister has emphasised, a passenger-carrying service. In October last year, the Mare Nostrum project was withdrawn by the Italian Government, and the British Government withdrew support for future search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean, claiming, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, emphasised, that they simply encouraged more people to attempt the dangerous sea crossing. It was withdrawn, but they still came and are still coming. Desperate people will do desperate things. This was a dreadful decision, and one to which these Benches drew the attention of the House at the time.
Belatedly, in May this year, the Government sent HMS “Bulwark” to rescue desperate people in the Mediterranean, saving 5,000 people. The smaller HMS “Enterprise” was then sent to replace HMS “Bulwark” but, after a month at sea, had not rescued anyone. Will the Minister clarify whether HMS “Enterprise” is still operating in the Mediterranean and, if so, how many people it has rescued? Is she confident that the search and rescue capability—which should be distinguished from the attempt to stop traffickers—is equal to the task of saving lives in the Mediterranean?
We welcome the Prime Minister’s belated decision, following that public outcry, to agree to welcome 20,000 Syrians from the border refugee camps by the end of this Parliament. However, we are welcoming 20,000 over five years, when Germany is on course to host 1 million by the end of the year. That provides some perspective on the challenges that our continental friends are confronting. Some 20,000 people at some point in the future will do nothing to ease the burden that our continental friends are facing today.
It was heartening to hear the Minister state that we need to be part of a comprehensive European solution to this problem, but I am sure that her idea of a comprehensive European solution looks very different from mine. The Government must stop confusing people with talk of Schengen, asylum seekers, refugees and the free movement of people in the EU and all their rights in one breath. All of these are different, and confusing those issues stirs the sensitive immigration debate in a way that is unnecessary. The fact is that these people will try to come to Europe and the UK irrespective of our relationship with the EU. Migrants will gather in Calais in search of a better life on our shores. Desperate people will not wait for the Government to act, and it is in our interests to work in concert with other European member states.
It is clear that the Dublin regulation, the system that prevents asylum application to numerous EU member states, has stalled, and that there are considerable strains on the Schengen open-border system. How can the Government set a cap on the number of asylum seekers coming to this country over five years when they have no idea how the situation will unfold in the next few weeks, let alone the next five years? The time for action and help is now, so why not get on with the job and bring 10,000 people in before Christmas?
A senior UN official has claimed that, if the war continues, 1 million more refugees will find their way to Europe by the end of this year. Ultimately, we will need to find a solution in Syria. We need to increase the diplomatic pressure on Assad, and we need people to feel safe in their country and their region. We know that there are no quick fixes or immediate answers, but some kind of strategy would be a good start.
The issue of immigration is one of the greatest challenges of our time. We must not forget that at one stage or another we were all immigrants to this country. I remember that when I was a little girl our family was asked to take care of a Vietnamese boat family. They came, integrated and contributed in a real way to the economy and to the community. Today’s asylum seekers will do the same. I pay tribute in particular to the moving speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on this issue.
War and human rights abuses are not the only reasons for people to come to this country, or to move at all. In future years, our response to climate change will come too late to stop extreme flooding and famine. We need a global dialogue on this issue that understands the best thing to do is to address the issue in a multifaceted way, investing in stopping climate change, investing in diplomacy to stop wars and securing safety for people in their home nations where possible. Raiding the development budget this year will only take the Government so far. If we are not fixing issues in developing nations, we will need to fix them here at a great much greater cost. In the long term, it is a false economy to raid the overseas budget.
We have an immediate problem now, though. The situation is urgent; people are dying now. Long-term solutions will not solve this particular problem. The time for talking is over and the time for action is now.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their incredibly passionate contributions this evening. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Brooke for his valedictory speech, and on behalf of the House I thank him for his public service over many decades. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell summed up very neatly the work that my noble friend Lord Brooke has carried out.
As noble Lords have said, this is a debate about the head and the heart. We have to be proud of the work that we have done to support the Syrian people in this unprecedented crisis through our aid budget, through British NGOs such as Oxfam and Save the Children and through the amazing work of British humanitarian workers who risk their lives to provide life-saving assistance.
The picture inside Syria is unspeakably bleak. For four years the people of Syria have been bombed, starved and driven from their homes. Since the start of this crisis we have been there saving lives inside Syria and providing food, clean water, shelter and other essentials to support those who have been forced to flee to neighbouring countries. We are helping those countries cope with the strain that the crisis is putting on them.
We will continue to push for improved international responses to the unfolding crises. The deliberate tactics of the Assad regime to bomb and starve its people into submission and the rise of ISIL and other armed extremist groups in Syria and Iraq have all served to intensify the crisis and to worsen the plight of the Syrian people caught up in it. That is why the UK worked hard with others to achieve the critical UN Security Council resolution in July that enables UN aid delivery across Syria’s border without the consent of the regime. Ultimately, a political resolution to the conflict in Syria is the only long-term solution, as the noble Lord, Lord Green, pointed out earlier.
There are a number of questions to which I need to respond, but I want to say firmly from the outset that the UK Government have been committed to supporting Syria. The UK was one of the first countries on the scene. Let us not divert the debate into Conservative Members wanting this to be an EU debate where the Government and the Prime Minister have been frightened to respond. That undermines the great work that not only DfID but the whole Government are doing. I urge all noble Lords to keep this debate on the track that it should be, where we as a country should be proud of the work that we are undertaking and the commitment through the DfID budgets and the other schemes that we support—not just the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme but the other schemes that are already in place, such as the Gateway scheme and the Mandate scheme; schemes which are already bringing in refugees and supporting them when they come to our country and ask for asylum.
If we ensure that up to 20,000 more of the most vulnerable Syrian refugees can safely reach the UK, using the aid budget we shall help both them and local communities to adjust to their arrival. We have to be mindful that we are going to be settling these people who are fleeing because they are the most needy, because they need the most support. Therefore we need to make sure that we prepare the places to which they are going so that they are thoroughly ready to receive those people with their needs.
By relocating them we want to make sure that we avoid adding to the trade in human lives that at the moment is the business of people traffickers. We must not forget that people are benefiting and profiting from the plight of people trying to flee. It is because of that that we need to make sure that we are working collectively with our European partners in ensuring that we tackle this heinous, horrible, horrendous use of people for profit.
However, as was rightly said by many noble Lords, the work that we are doing, and with other nations, is to try to make sure that we have proper funding, resources and responses to ensure that the people are helped. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out that 94% or 95% of the people of Syria are still either within that country or in neighbouring countries. We need to make sure that support is there in order rightly to let those countries manage the plight of the people who are being given such a miserable existence within Syria.
The goals and global challenges are complex. Later this month, at the UN General Assembly, the world will sign up to new global goals. In December, in Paris, we expect to achieve a game-changing global climate change deal, the likes of which we have never managed before. This is a time for momentous decision-making for the planet and its future. British people can be assured that we, the UK Government, are doing everything that we can to deal with this current crisis—from providing aid to people in the region to giving asylum to those in need and saving lives in the Mediterranean, and hunting down people-smuggling gangs. Britain cannot be accused of not pulling its weight.
On Monday, the Prime Minister announced the appointment of Richard Harrington MP as Minister for Syrian Refugees. He will be responsible for co-ordinating and delivering across government for Syrian resettlement, along with co-ordinating the provision of government support to Syrian refugees in the region. He will report primarily to the Home Secretary as well as to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. He will also report to the Secretary of State for International Development on the provision of support to assist Syrians in the region.
The noble Lords, Lord Ashdown and Lord Anderson, asked what we were doing for those people who are living outside camps in Syria and the region. There are more than 4 million Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries, of which the majority are being accommodated outside camps within host communities. The UK has allocated £519 million to support refugees in the region. This support is providing food, water and medical consultations.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s generosity in giving way, given our limited time. Perhaps I may ask a specific question, and the Minister for Syrian Refugees could address it if the noble Baroness cannot do so. The Government have said that they will put a specific emphasis on allowing orphans and children to come to Britain. Will she confirm that it remains the Government’s policy that they will be subject to deportation at the age of 18? We know that they can appeal against that, and the Prime Minister has said that there will be a presumption in favour of such appeals succeeding. Quite how that will work, I do not know. Can she imagine just how much insecurity that will create for those children’s education, not to have their future beyond the age of 18 clarified? Can she address that question directly?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I will address that question. Those people coming under the Syrian protected scheme will have, after five years, the right to indefinite stay. Among them, there will be young people who, when they reach the age of 18, will have applied through the system and remain here because of their status as having been among the 20,000 people who we will bring into the UK and will be supported under the Syrian protected scheme.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
I am sorry, but “applied” means that they will not necessarily be relieved of being deported. That is correct and is the only way in which we can read the Minister’s words, I presume.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, perhaps I am not explaining this very well. Among the 20,000 coming in, Syrian refugees of less than 18 years will be provided with humanitarian protection for five years under the scheme. Under the Syrian protection scheme, we will not be looking to remove any such child once they reach the age of 18. I hope that that adds clarity.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
Will the Minister confirm an answer that was given this very day last week in response to a question about the number of further leave to remain refusals that have occurred to people formally granted temporary leave as children upon applying as adults? Those refusals rose from six in 2006 to 870 in 2010; whereas, after plateauing at 871 in 2011, they fell in each year of the coalition thereafter to 374 in 2014. I personally regard those statistics as encouraging.
Baroness Verma
I thank my noble friend for his intervention. However, I reiterate that the scheme we are operating, the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme, is different from other schemes and, therefore, under this scheme, those reaching the age of 18 will remain.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, so that we can make progress, I think it would be easier if I write to the noble Lord and put a copy of that in the Library.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked about the structure of the Gold Command team announced today. The Gold Command has been established in the Home Office as a dedicated resource to ensure that commitment to resettlement is fulfilled quickly. It will report to the new Minister for Syrian refugees and will co-ordinate the response across government, the third sector and international agencies.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, said that the Government refused to co-operate with Europe, as did a number of other noble Lords. I repeat that the Government are working very closely with EU partners, through the Commission, the Council and bilaterally. There are very many areas that we agree on and will continue to work together on: securing the external border and establishing hotspots, and providing real help on the ground and practical support to front-line member states. So it is wrong to say that we are not co-operating with Europe. However, we have taken a decision that we will operate our national response in this way. We think that it is the right way to respond to ensure that people are settled and supported in their own country, or in the region near to their country, so that they can then return when the conditions improve.
Somebody asked how the people coming will be accommodated. I remind noble Lords that we have a proud history, over many years, of being able to operate resettlement schemes. We already have established and effective networks to accommodate and support resettled people. However, we recognise that the increase in numbers will require an expansion of current networks and have an impact on local communities and infrastructure. We will need to manage that carefully. That is why it is important that we work with a wide range of partners, including local authorities and civil society organisations, to ensure that people are integrated sensitively into local communities.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell asked whether the 20,000 figure is a firm target. We have always been very clear that the 20,000 figure is not a target. Resettlement schemes must be designed to respond to need, not to fulfil arbitrary quotas. The figure will always remain under review. We will monitor the situation and do what needs to be done as we see fit.
Baroness Verma
I will just finish this point.
My noble friend also asked what we were doing to support minority groups as we have seen some horrific cases of attacks on Christians and other religious communities by violent extremists, including ISIL. I reassure all noble Lords that all UK-funded assistance is distributed on the basis of need to ensure that civilians are not discriminated against on the grounds of race, religion or ethnicity. We want to prioritise reaching the most vulnerable people across Syria. That includes Christians and those who have suffered from such violence. We will continue to work with the United Nations and the international community to ensure that all minority rights are protected and that our aid reaches those who are in greatest need.
Lord Greaves
Does the Minister have an answer to my question about how many local authorities have offered to assist the Government in welcoming refugees?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I remember the question. I will need to go back and source the answer for the noble Lord. At this moment, I suspect that we are working with local authorities and so will not have a precise answer for him, but I promise to take the question back.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked why we were limiting the expansion to Syrians. It is important to note that by the end of 2014 Syria was the top source country for refugees: one in every four refugees was from Syria. It was right and proper that we focused our efforts there first. The UK has already run many resettlement schemes that do not restrict nationality, such as the Gateway Protection Programme and the Mandate refugee scheme that I mentioned earlier. The noble Lord also asked how the UK was supporting health education and economic opportunities for refugees in the region. UK support in the region is providing medical assistance for refugees in Lebanon. The UK is working alongside the Government to expand the education system to reach thousands of Syrian children and improve basic services. The Prime Minister’s recent announcement will double education support for refugee children over the next three years— £30 million over three years. We will continue to talk to host Governments to expand livelihood opportunities for Syrian refugees.
I was asked about support for the work of the Navy and new naval activity. The Royal Navy has today offered the warship HMS “Richmond”, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, to boost the Government’s efforts to tackle people smuggling in the Mediterranean. It will support a surge of EU activity to tackle people smuggling before the start of winter and we welcome all noble Lords’ support.
I was asked whether there was a buffer zone in Jordan or other neighbouring countries. There is no official buffer zone for Syrians in Jordan. There are processing centres to register all Syrians for these countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, asked whether those arriving would be allowed to work. Under the scheme, they will be allowed to work and access benefits. They will have a five-year settlement visa and be able to have all the rights that come with that settlement. They will be assisted in the first year by ODA money and will then have access to the benefits and education systems, social services and health services that any British citizen would. That will be available to them.
I was also asked about what we were doing to encourage Gulf states to contribute more to the international response. We have actively engaged with the Gulf states on the humanitarian response in Syria. The Gulf states continue to contribute generously to the UN Syria appeals. Kuwait has hosted three fundraising conferences for the Syrian crisis, raising billions of dollars. This year, some $3.6 billion has been raised at the Kuwait pledging conference.
I have a number of responses to get through but I am fast running out of time. I would like to end by saying that it is really important to recognise that the work that the British Government, the British people and our NGOs are doing is going a long way towards helping to provide support for desperate people, but it is not enough. We need to encourage others to rise to the mark because as we try to build a more stable and prosperous world, there will be greater need. We are leading the international community in our response, but the UK cannot do it alone. Where I have not been able to respond to all the questions that have been put to me, I offer to write. However, as always, we could have taken a lot longer over this debate.
Education and Adoption Bill
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text